# Where is all of the good inventory going at RCI?



## Carolinian (Jan 24, 2007)

There have been many reports that it is getting harder and harder to find good trades at RCI.  I would suggest that this indicates that the factors I have been warning about since the inception of GPN/RCI Points are taking hold;

1) Points members looting the Weeks inventory through the unfair and downright fraudulent generic grids for crossover exchanges.  The problem here is ''overaveraging'' which lumps highly desirable areas and less desirable areas together and prime weeks and pink weeks together with an unrealistic ''one size (number) fits all'' approach.  Sanibel, Captiva, and Key West are thrown in with overbuiilt Orlando, given the same number.  High demand/ low supply Charleston is thrown in with inland South Carolina resorts.
Prime summer has the same number as early spring and late fall as all red is treated the same whether bright red or pale pink.  The result is an unrealistically low points value for the prime locations and seasons, and unrealistically high number for marginal seasons and locations.

This creates a bargain basement for Points members to cherry pick and take the very best locations and seasons for much less than they are really worth.
Why would a Points members take their own Points inventory when they can get it far cheaper by looting Weeks inventory for many less points through the unfair crossover grids?  This leaves less for the Weeks members in their own system, and Weeks members cannot cross over to take Points inventory.

2. RCI rentals involve cherry picking of their own.  When they take inventory out for rentals to pay for Points Partner ''trades'', they are likely to maximize their return by also using the unfair generic grids for crossover trades to take prime Weeks inventory, which they can rent for more money that what they would get out of Points.  Someone posted a while back some material from an RCI report where they specifically stated they could take anything a Points member could to replace the Points Partner inventory.  RCI's best bang for the buck (point) itself is also raiding Weeks inventory.

To right the system, the best thing to do is to put up a firewall betweent the two systems.  Let each trade only for its own inventory.  Another approach would be to at least reform the points grids by breaking locations into many more groups and seasons into many more groups.  They already do both in Europe for the girds.  There is no reason they could not take this minimal step here.  But of course, RCI can profiteer off of the system the way it is set up now.


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 24, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> ...Why would a Points members take their own Points inventory when they can get it far cheaper by looting Weeks inventory for many less points through the unfair crossover grids? ...


Let me answer a question by asking a question...

When a Weeks member goes online and sees a unit worth far more than what they deposited (or, an upgrade from a one bedroom to a two bedroom), why would they ever voluntarily take a lesser trade?  Apparently this sort of "raiding and pillaging" is okay since it is part of the Weeks system. Also, it apparently has no impact with regard to the disappearance of the good units.  We are to believe the small membership of the Points program is responsible for the disappearance of good units and Weeks members have nothing to do with it.

Responding to the OP's question more directly, I can name a ton of reasons.  The best unit where one wants to go is in Points.  There is no real difference in the Point value between a crossover trade and what one wants.  The savings in voluntarily taking a one bedroom unit is greater than any difference that might be found in the "unfair" grids. One hasn't decided on a vacation until about six months out, and, while all the inventory in Weeks is long gone, there is still good inventory in the Points system.  One only want to spend three or four days at a given location and Points allows you to split a week.  Etc.

These are not theorhetical reasons.  I have belonged to Points for over five years now and my trades have pretty much been in the Points system for the above reasons.  (Yes, I took a white week in inland Texas and just recently a Silver Crown week toward the beginning of January - one that sat on line for several weeks before I took it.)  

Reading messages from people in Points, I do see a lot of interest in cheap trades during the 45 day from check in period.  That seems to be the main area of interest in "crossover trades."  On the other hand, trading up within the Weeks system seems to be the name of the game - what it is all about.  Just my observations.


----------



## CMF (Jan 24, 2007)

*Working the system?*

Isn't all about working the system? And, should the system change, then the need/means to work it will go poof.

Charles

PS I'm not an RCI member, but may become on in the future once I find the right RCI points weeks for me.


----------



## Dave*H (Jan 24, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> To right the system, the best thing to do is to put up a firewall betweent the two systems.


This seems like a reasonable step.  Currently, points members and RCI control what gets pulled from weeks to points members and rentals, but only RCI controls what goes from points to weeks.

Disclaimer: I'm not an RCI member, and doubt I will become one in the near future.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 24, 2007)

In this case, it is about the exchange company artificially manipulating the interface between two systems it controls to give an unfair advantage to one and hose the other, while gaining a financial advantage to itself in the process.  




CMF said:


> Isn't all about working the system? And, should the system change, then the need/means to work it will go poof.
> 
> Charles
> 
> PS I'm not an RCI member, but may become on in the future once I find the right RCI points weeks for me.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 24, 2007)

Going from a 2BR to a 1BR is not always an upgrade.  It is only one of many factors to consider in the relative value of a week.  Going from a 3BR in an overbuilt area to a HU in London, San Francisco, or New York, for example is an upgrade even though the unit is much smaller.

The weeks system uses a dynamic valuation, base on supply and demand at the time.  That's what determines relative values, not size of unit or what some individual arbitrarily thinks it to be worth.  That is a more honest system than arbitrarily assigning and then freezing values, which may or may not be realistic when they are set (and in many cases definitely are not due to pandering to developers in sales), but are unlikely to remain so as the market changes.  While your opinion of relative values may be different, what you can exchange for is what market forces of supply and demand say they are.  Of course, that is the reason that those who own in areas of excess supply do not like market-based valuation.








"Roger" said:


> Let me answer a question by asking a question...
> 
> When a Weeks member goes online and sees a unit worth far more than what they deposited (or, an upgrade from a one bedroom to a two bedroom), why would they ever voluntarily take a lesser trade?  Apparently this sort of "raiding and pillaging" is okay since it is part of the Weeks system. Also, it apparently has no impact with regard to the disappearance of the good units.  We are to believe the small membership of the Points program is responsible for the disappearance of good units and Weeks members have nothing to do with it.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jan 24, 2007)

*Escalation?*




Carolinian said:


> Points members looting the Weeks inventory through the unfair and downright fraudulent generic grids for crossover exchanges.


Whoa -- I thought the points folks were merely _Raiding The Weeks Inventory_.  When did it escalate to _Looting The Weeks Inventory_ ?  What's next?  _Embezzling The Weeks Inventory_ ?   _Hijackacking The Weeks Inventory_ ?  _Ripping Off The Weeks Inventory_ ? 
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 24, 2007)

*Is it the system or the vacation that matters?*

It is clear from the interest level and trends in ownership that mini-systems and points of some variety not necessarily RCI based are the choice of todays timeshare owner. There also remains a staunch group of own to use and weeks based traders but they aren't buying more (new anyway, perhaps resale) but rather tend to use what they own as they have learned to enjoy it. Continually beating the drum for the system or use type a poster prefers can be interesting reading but isn't likely to sway anyone to the other side. It can help inform others of the options they have and that is the purpose of these types of threads. Mission accomplished. 

I will do my best to relax about the points vs weeks issue. It seems to be resolving itself as most expected would happen. I respect the weeks owners who want things back to 90's way but I don't think it is likely to occur no matter what the lawyers may say.  The market is moving toward a new model both by choice and some pushing from the marketers.  Its evolution and it isn't going to be stopped as long as someone can find a way to make a buck from it and can make the case for it.  

The bottom line has always been to do whatever works for your style of vacationing in the places you want to go. Otherwise simply having your timeshare use artificially limited to a fixed week, weeks only trades, renting, a mini-system or two or pure points just because you think thats the best would be insane. Use the systems and types that get you what you want at the lowest possible cost. Thats all that counts. Bemoaning what used to be, wishing your trades were better, avoiding over paying for an entrance into a mini-system, trumpeting the flexibility of points or the convenience of a known fixed week are all great topics. But what really matters is getting to spot X on date Y in a unit that meets your needs. The rest is theory, much of it isn't in our control and effort may be better spent using the tools we have rather than wasting time and money on trying to change the way companies do their business. Hey its vacation not war planning. I'll let the market decide if RCI is right or wrong, if II is incompetent or the greatest, if points and weeks can co-exist. Thats what will occur eventually no matter what some court decides so why waste the time arguing. I'd rather be on vacation and it really doesn't matter to me if I rent it, own it, trade in weeks or points as long as I'm there.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 24, 2007)

It is completely conjecture to blame the lack of good inventory in RCI weeks on RCI Points.  Whether or not RCI Points existed, the same reduction of good inventory would be occurring.  

RCI weeks is a flawed system and the actions that RCI is taking across the board is clearly making it more difficult to get a good trade.  This has more to do with RCI than it does with RCI Points.  If there was a firewall put up between RCI weeks and RCI Points, RCI would simply find another way to prevent owners from getting good trades.

Lawsuits are a waste of time and money.  Those class action lawsuits appear to be going nowhere.

The only thing that will correct the RCI system is the free market.  It is good to post information about what is happening to good inventory because then fewer people will continue to use RCI over time if they continue their questionable practices.


----------



## kwilson (Jan 24, 2007)

AwayWeGo said:


> Whoa -- I thought the points folks were merely _Raiding The Weeks Inventory_.  When did it escalate to _Looting The Weeks Inventory_ ?  What's next?  _Embezzling The Weeks Inventory_ ?   _Hijackacking The Weeks Inventory_ ?  _Ripping Off The Weeks Inventory_ ?
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



All of the above!


----------



## kwilson (Jan 24, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> Let me answer a question by asking a question...
> 
> When a Weeks member goes online and sees a unit worth far more than what they deposited (or, an upgrade from a one bedroom to a two bedroom), why would they ever voluntarily take a lesser trade?  .



We regularly see this argument from points advocates. It shows either an ignorance, misunderstanding, or deliberate disregard of the meaning of "like for like". Maybe it should be more clearly stated as "demand for demand". The only time a weeks member sees a week "worth far more than what they deposited " is if a resort deposits units for the purpose of attracting potential buyers, which is what most bulk banks are. A possible exception might be the 45 day window. If I deposit a 1Br blue week and get a 2Br red week it is because the 2Br is off season (decreased demand) or in a highly available area. E.G., Orlando/Kissimee, (over supply). In this case the 2 weeks ARE comparable in light of supply and demand. An even trade; NOT "worth far more than what they deposited".

Apologies to Carolinian. Your eloquent explanations are usually ignored by this crowd so I thought I'd try mine.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 24, 2007)

Maybe you missed the article by California timeshare industry veteran Byron Wiegand some months ago in Timesharing Today.  Wiegand had written an article on GPN (later RCI Points) in its early days, taking a ''wait and see'' approach.  After watching for several years, he wrote again saying that the jury was in on RCI Points and it was thumbs down.  He went through the reasons, but also imparted some interesting info on timesharing in California, saying that the change of resorts to the Points sysem had virtually ground to a halt with most resorts still firmly in Weeks and that many of the conversion brokers who had been trying to sell conversions at resorts that had swtiched to Points had gotten out of the business as they had already reached all of those susceptible to conversion.  This hardly sounds like a system with history on its side to me!

This is not limited to the US.  Also you probably missed the fact that quite a number of Australian resorts that had switched to Points have since switched back to Weeks.

Points people are welcome to their own system, as long as their system doesn't have its hand in the pocket of my system, picking that pocket.  Get rid of the unfair, indeed fraudulent, interface between the systems, and as far as I am concerned, Points can go on its merry way!





timeos2 said:


> It is clear from the interest level and trends in ownership that mini-systems and points of some variety not necessarily RCI based are the choice of todays timeshare owner. There also remains a staunch group of own to use and weeks based traders but they aren't buying more (new anyway, perhaps resale) but rather tend to use what they own as they have learned to enjoy it. Continually beating the drum for the system or use type a poster prefers can be interesting reading but isn't likely to sway anyone to the other side. It can help inform others of the options they have and that is the purpose of these types of threads. Mission accomplished.
> 
> I will do my best to relax about the points vs weeks issue. It seems to be resolving itself as most expected would happen. I respect the weeks owners who want things back to 90's way but I don't think it is likely to occur no matter what the lawyers may say.  The market is moving toward a new model both by choice and some pushing from the marketers.  Its evolution and it isn't going to be stopped as long as someone can find a way to make a buck from it and can make the case for it.
> 
> The bottom line has always been to do whatever works for your style of vacationing in the places you want to go. Otherwise simply having your timeshare use artificially limited to a fixed week, weeks only trades, renting, a mini-system or two or pure points just because you think thats the best would be insane. Use the systems and types that get you what you want at the lowest possible cost. Thats all that counts. Bemoaning what used to be, wishing your trades were better, avoiding over paying for an entrance into a mini-system, trumpeting the flexibility of points or the convenience of a known fixed week are all great topics. But what really matters is getting to spot X on date Y in a unit that meets your needs. The rest is theory, much of it isn't in our control and effort may be better spent using the tools we have rather than wasting time and money on trying to change the way companies do their business. Hey its vacation not war planning. I'll let the market decide if RCI is right or wrong, if II is incompetent or the greatest, if points and weeks can co-exist. Thats what will occur eventually no matter what some court decides so why waste the time arguing. I'd rather be on vacation and it really doesn't matter to me if I rent it, own it, trade in weeks or points as long as I'm there.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 24, 2007)

*Leftovers....*

Gee, I’ve been away from TUG for a while – looks like the same-old-same-old; RCI is evil.

I’m assuming that there is no proof that RCI is doing anything wrong – no court has ruled against RCI since I last tuned in – right?  All of these baseless accusations have only a “gut feeling” as to something wrong – am I wrong here?

This is consumer activism and if you want to spend your time doing this, instead of going on vacation, well that’s up to you.  However, *the many tricks and techniques to get a great vacation are based upon the principle that you get them and other owners don’t.*  Same here, if a group of owners is getting leftovers, then your time and money should be spent learning how to be the folks who leave the leftovers.

I’m sure this topic will appear again – it hasn’t changed in the last 10+ times it’s been brought up – it won’t change in the next 10.  Stop wasting your time in getting mad a RCI, or whoever, get even by spending your time switching from RCI or join RCI Points and take all those great weeks from the RCI week owners – it’s a smorgasbord of vacations waiting for folks to snap up.

Someone send me a PM when some real news about the "RCI problem" occurs - I'm out of here.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 24, 2007)

kwilson said:


> We regularly see this argument from points advocates. It shows either an ignorance, misunderstanding, or deliberate disregard of the meaning of "like for like". Maybe it should be more clearly stated as "demand for demand". The only time a weeks member sees a week "worth far more than what they deposited " is if a resort deposits units for the purpose of attracting potential buyers, which is what most bulk banks are. A possible exception might be the 45 day window. If I deposit a 1Br blue week and get a 2Br red week it is because the 2Br is off season (decreased demand) or in a highly available area. E.G., Orlando/Kissimee, (over supply). In this case the 2 weeks ARE comparable in light of supply and demand. An even trade; NOT "worth far more than what they deposited".
> 
> Apologies to Carolinian. Your eloquent explanations are usually ignored by this crowd so I thought I'd try mine.



Actually, I regularly get huge trade ups in RCI weeks.  The flaw in your logic and that of Carolinians is that the RCI weeks system is a perfect supply and demand mapping system.  It clearly is not.  It has secret trading power formulas that people on this board figure out and exploit on a regular basis.  In fact, that is the fundamental strategy that many who exchange utilize.  At this point, hardly anyone wants to share trading secrets anymore because if they do, they are concerned that RCI will change the trading power rules on them.  That is a real risk.  Think Manhattan Club.

As further evidence to show how RCI weeks has flawed trading power formulae, Just take a look at what happened on Black Sunday in South Africa.  That is a clear an indisputable defect in the supply and demand mapping formula of RCI weeks.  If you believe that that was the only remaining fix they needed to make, then well, there is no logic I can provide to change your mind.

The best method for mapping supply and demand of resorts in a weeks based system is a rental model.   In a rental model, the rent that a potential renter is willing to pay rises and falls with the relative supply and demand of a given week.  Everyone has access to every week and as long as the information of availability and price is shared with all market participants, it is the best model possible for mapping supply and demand..  That model doesn't yet exist today.  But, a points based system is closer to that model than the current weeks based model.  Points based systems do have their flaws as well as Caronlian and others have articulated.  However, those flaws pale in comparison to the gaping holes that weeks based systems have in mapping supply and demand.

It is fine to say that you prefer the old weeks based system to any of the newer points based systems.  But, it is a fallacy to simply blame the woes of weeks based systems on the introduction of points based systems believing that a simple firewall between the two systems will bring back the glory days of weeks exchange.

The truth of the matter is that the RCI weeks system was flawed from the start.  As more people figured out how it worked, they started exploiting the loopholes in it to the point where it is finally starting to degrade significantly.  The other activities that RCI is pursuing is no doubt accelerating the decline, but that doesn't mean that the decline wasn't inevitable.  I believe it was.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 24, 2007)

*I want 5 cent Cokes back too*



Carolinian said:


> Maybe you missed the article by California timeshare industry veteran Byron Wiegand some months ago in Timesharing Today.  Wiegand had written an article on GPN (later RCI Points) in its early days, taking a ''wait and see'' approach.  After watching for several years, he wrote again saying that the jury was in on RCI Points and it was thumbs down.  He went through the reasons, but also imparted some interesting info on timesharing in California, saying that the change of resorts to the Points sysem had virtually ground to a halt with most resorts still firmly in Weeks and that many of the conversion brokers who had been trying to sell conversions at resorts that had swtiched to Points had gotten out of the business as they had already reached all of those susceptible to conversion.  This hardly sounds like a system with history on its side to me!



History is useful but not the perfect predictor. Being a better product/system guarantees nothing. If it did we would all be running Lotus, Wordperfect on OS/2 or Apple OS's, using Betamax's and driving the worlds most successful cars - the Edsel or perhaps a Tucker.  Even if weeks really was better it could be easily beaten by a concentrated effort by the powers to kill it. Plus time changes things. What does it matter today that Beta or VHS "won"? Neither is a viable platform anymore in the digital world. At one time in the 60's and 70's Oldsmobile ruled the mid-sized performance niche with the 442 which helped sell millions of more pedestrian Cutlasses. Didn't help them in 2002 and the plug was pulled not just on those models but the whole brand.  

It doesn't matter if points or weeks came first, if points only sells to new buyers but not existing, if weeks owners no longer deposit to RCI or not - the fact is the timeshare world, like everything else always does, has changed. Those who refuse to see it or adjust will be left wishing for the $.25 gas and the muscle cars of 1967 and have just as much likelihood of ever seeing the heady days of weeks trades return intact.  Time to move on. The world has.


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 24, 2007)

kwilson said:


> .... The *only *time a weeks member sees a week "worth far more than what they deposited " is if a resort deposits units for the purpose of attracting potential buyers, which is what most bulk banks are....



I'm sorry, but if that is true (and I don't believe it is true) the Weeks system is even more broken that Boca implies.  I'm also sorry, but a mathematical model is needed here to see why.

Suppose you have ten timeshare owners for whom the value of their resorts (conveniently) is 1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10.  Now suppose that, within the Weeks system, you can only trade even or down (and never up).   Member 10 (with the most valuable unit) trades for unit 7.  9 stays with 9.  8 is happy to trade for unit 5.  Now what happens to members 1 through 7?  According to the quote, none of them can "trade up."  (I don't believe that, but that is what the post claims.)  Thus, none of them can trade for units 8 or 10 (since they are trades up).  There are only 5 units to share among them (and that would be only if none of them trade down).  

I guess the answer is that II (or RCI) is free to rent the two of the three top units since no one is eligible to take them.

If that is what weeks members are complaining about, I don't blame them a bit.  But notice, there was no raiding from the Points system for this to occur.  It is simply carrying out the consequences of the claim that "The *only *time a weeks member sees a week "worth far more than what they deposited " is if a resort deposits units for the purpose of attracting potential buyers, which is what most bulk banks are...."  Yes, if that is what is happening, the Weeks system is truly sick.

On a more realistic level, I joined TUG long before Points was ever invented.  People came to TUG and praised it to the hilt for giving it tips on how to trade up.  There were regular bragging sessions as to who got away with the most.

I am willing to believe that RCI has made it much harder to trade up than in the old days, but I don't believe for the moment that trading up never happened (and this is based upon my becoming an informed TUGGER long before Points was ever invented).


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 24, 2007)

Well, maybe you would have waited for the smoking gun on Enron or the Savings and Loans, too.

RCI admits it is renting spacebank inventory.  The fraudent points crossover grids are also public.  Bootleg has told us what he has found on RCI computers and so have other RCI employees at TimeshareTalk.  There is enough info out there that it is naive to keep our heads in the sand, but I'm sure some will do so right up to the last minute.  I remember some of those who defend RCI vehemently challenging the fact that the SkyAuction rentals were coming from RCI. . . up until a number of Tuggers won those auctions and got standard RCI confirmations for their Sky Auction timeshare rentals!!

The lawsuits are still in the discovery stage and I understand that BOTH sides are vigorously involved in discovery at present.  Personally, I have always contended that a consumer protection lawsuit by a state Attorney General would have been a better approach, but the class action hopefully will put a stop to some of these exchange company practices that threaten to kick the financial props out from under the timesharing ownership/exchange model.

Consumers CAN bring about change at big companies which adopt anti-consumer policies.  The self-styled ''Cockroaches'' brought US Airways to heel over anti-consumer ff changes in a matter of weeks.  It took a couple of years, but the www.saveskymiles.com campaign was also succesful at Delta.
I participated as a minor player in the latter.




PerryM said:


> Gee, I’ve been away from TUG for a while – looks like the same-old-same-old; RCI is evil.
> 
> I’m assuming that there is no proof that RCI is doing anything wrong – no court has ruled against RCI since I last tuned in – right?  All of these baseless accusations have only a “gut feeling” as to something wrong – am I wrong here?
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 24, 2007)

You are incorrectly applying the frozen value points concept to Weeks, which in contrast has dynamic values.  As the shelf life decreases, and certainly at 45 days out, the exchange value of the the more desirable weeks will adjust downward and they will match as exchanges.  That is a function of the vacuum on the demand side.  Unlike calcified points systems values, the exchange dynamics of weeks is _flexible_





"Roger" said:


> I'm sorry, but if that is true (and I don't believe it is true) the Weeks system is even more broken that Boca implies.  I'm also sorry, but a mathematical model is needed here to see why.
> 
> Suppose you have ten timeshare owners for whom the value of their resorts (conveniently) is 1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10.  Now suppose that, within the Weeks system, you can only trade even or down (and never up).   Member 10 (with the most valuable unit) trades for unit 7.  9 stays with 9.  8 is happy to trade for unit 5.  Now what happens to members 1 through 7?  According to the quote, none of them can "trade up."  (I don't believe that, but that is what the post claims.)  Thus, none of them can trade for units 8 or 10 (since they are trades up).  There are only 5 units to share among them (and that would be only if none of them trade down).
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 24, 2007)

Byron Wiegand's statements about RCI Points running out of gas in California are not history, but an assessment of the current situation on the ground there, even if the true beleivers of points think otherwise.




timeos2 said:


> History is useful but not the perfect predictor. Being a better product/system guarantees nothing. If it did we would all be running Lotus, Wordperfect on OS/2 or Apple OS's, using Betamax's and driving the worlds most successful cars - the Edsel or perhaps a Tucker.  Even if weeks really was better it could be easily beaten by a concentrated effort by the powers to kill it. Plus time changes things. What does it matter today that Beta or VHS "won"? Neither is a viable platform anymore in the digital world. At one time in the 60's and 70's Oldsmobile ruled the mid-sized performance niche with the 442 which helped sell millions of more pedestrian Cutlasses. Didn't help them in 2002 and the plug was pulled not just on those models but the whole brand.
> 
> It doesn't matter if points or weeks came first, if points only sells to new buyers but not existing, if weeks owners no longer deposit to RCI or not - the fact is the timeshare world, like everything else always does, has changed. Those who refuse to see it or adjust will be left wishing for the $.25 gas and the muscle cars of 1967 and have just as much likelihood of ever seeing the heady days of weeks trades return intact.  Time to move on. The world has.


----------



## kwilson (Jan 24, 2007)

I'm sorry too, but you can't apply mathematical models to a subject where there are unknown variables that alter the numbers at a ghost's whim. But for your question, IF 8 and 10 are not subject to VEP limits, their weeks would languish in the pool until someone with adequate power requests them, OR until the 45 day window when supposedly anyone who wants can get them. But the problem isn't lack of requests from people with adequate power. There are plenty on them. The problem is those 8s and 10s are immediately sucked up by RCI and rented out, or bought with points. The owners of 7 and 5 will get someone else's 7 and 5. Theoretically there is a constant supply of units to fill any voids. Think Ponzi scheme. 
I keep records of my exchanges for the last 20 years, and I see plenty of trade-ups, but none that can't be explained by my statement.



"Roger" said:


> I'm sorry, but if that is true (and I don't believe it is true) the Weeks system is even more broken that Boca implies.  I'm also sorry, but a mathematical model is needed here to see why.
> 
> Suppose you have ten timeshare owners for whom the value of their resorts (conveniently) is 1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10.  Now suppose that, within the Weeks system, you can only trade even or down (and never up).   Member 10 (with the most valuable unit) trades for unit 7.  9 stays with 9.  8 is happy to trade for unit 5.  Now what happens to members 1 through 7?  According to the quote, none of them can "trade up."  (I don't believe that, but that is what the post claims.)  Thus, none of them can trade for units 8 or 10 (since they are trades up).  There are only 5 units to share among them (and that would be only if none of them trade down).
> 
> ...


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 24, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> You are incorrectly applying the frozen value points concept to Weeks, which in contrast has dynamic values.  As the shelf life decreases, and certainly at 45 days out, the exchange value of the the more desirable weeks will adjust downward and they will match as exchanges.  That is a function of the vacuum on the demand side.  Unlike calcified points systems values, the exchange dynamics of weeks is _flexible_


So the explanation here is that the weeks that are worth a 10 aren't really worth that because the Weeks system will eventually downgrade their worth and that some lower value will become their "true worth."  Also, people should look for these "mediocre" weeks toward the 45 days out no holds barred trade period.

Shakespeare had it right:  Oh what tangled webs we weave.

Just for the record, by far the most popular reason given for not converting to points is that people say that they don't want to lose the ability to trade up.  In Points, they would have to pay more for such trades.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 24, 2007)

*Seems weeks has never worked as advertised*

or as the weeks brigade wants to remember it. Roger recently posted on another thread how TUG got it's start. Turns out it was in part  due to the poor trades available!  See that post. The rose colored glasses must get thicker over time.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 24, 2007)

kwilson said:


> I keep records of my exchanges for the last 20 years, and I see plenty of trade-ups, but none that can't be explained by my statement.



So you do see plenty of trade ups.  That is exactly right.  Effective weeks exchange has always been about trade ups.  RCI has simply made it more difficult to trade up.  There was never a guarantee that trade ups would always be available.  In fact, it's supposed to be like for like.  So, weeks advocates should applaude the removal of trade ups if they are for a sound system.  But they don't.  Why?  Because they miss the good ol' days when developer inventory was plentiful and naive exchangers deposited good weeks at will rather than renting them.

The truth is that the weeks exchange systems have always been a ponzi scheme to enable Developers to sell more intervals at inflated prices.  In the sales pitch, they say that you can exchange for any available week in the big book they hand you.  But, that's only a half truth now isn't it?  Exchanging always has been much harder than that.

Developers want to keep trading power secret so that their specific resort is the one that you should be buying at that very moment in time.  They want to claim that their resort is the best and there is no way to prove it one way or another.

The only reason that weeks exchange systems (and to some extent point systems as well) work is due to 3 things.  First, many exchangers who get nothing for their deposits.  This is a significant proportion of depositers.  Second, developer weeks that were once plentiful and used for baiting in new tour guests.  This is getting smaller due to direct rental activities of resort developers.  Third, lack of alternatives for timeshare owners to dispose of their weeks for something of value.  Now, they have point systems (non-timeshare products such as airline tickets), rentals, alternate exchange companies all enabled by the internet.  So, prime week owners just don't see a need to put them into RCI as much as they used to.  And, the every increasing number of smart timesharers who join TUG and learn how to exchange also contributes to the increased competition and lower inventory of good weeks.  That provides a more plausible explanation as to the reduction of good inventory over time than the simple, yet emotionally charged finger pointing that is directed at point systems.

I think that weeks advocates who long for the good ol' days would like to see more depositers go without exchanges, more developer weeks and many more uneducated timeshare owners who simply deposit their prime weeks.  That is what it would take in order for weeks systems to be like they once were.  Putting all the blame on an RCI generic points grid is simply not the real reason that weeks exchange is getting harder and more difficult every year.  It was doomed from the start and it is now experience it comeupppance.


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 24, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> or as the weeks brigade wants to remember it. Roger recently posted on another thread how TUG got it's start. Turns out it was in part  due to the poor trades available!  See that post. The rose colored glasses must get thicker over time.



I've read the "how TUG got its start" message many times and I always thought it had to do with the lack of _information _about available resorts, not availability itself.


----------



## reddiablosv (Jan 24, 2007)

Another approach would be to at least reform the points grids by breaking locations into many more groups and seasons into many more groups.  They already do both in Europe for the girds.  There is no reason they could not take this minimal step here.  But of course, RCI can profiteer off of the system the way it is set up now.[/QUOTE]

Carolinian, while I generally agree with you on abuses of RCI, I feel it is necessary to point out that some of the best cross over bargins that RCI is offering at present can be found in Europe.  Yes they do break up their weeks locations into many more groups and locations, but, at present, compared to my PFD Paniolo Greens Week, some European weeks are very undervalued!! I receive 80,500 pts. for my Hawaii week that will exchange for several European weeks.  My MF is $590.  With my one PFD depoist this year I have received an exchange for the Royal Regency in Paris, the Domina Inn Palumbalza in Sardinia, and the Porto Rio Hotel in Greece.   I don't think the the half measure of applying more specific point values seasons and locations would accomplish any benefit.  For true reform either you need to create a firewall or you create bilateral crossover.  Let the weeks owners have access to the points inventory.  One way cross over is just a vehicle for exploitation.  IMHO Ben


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 25, 2007)

*Yes, there is great value in a million unredeemable miles*



Carolinian said:


> It took a couple of years, but the www.saveskymiles.com campaign was also succesful at Delta.
> I participated as a minor player in the latter.



A great example of how class action or consumer outrage can "win" the battle and lose the war. Last time I looked Delta was bankrupt and US Air wants to buy them out. Why? Because they have a unworkable cost model - including that unmaintainable FF system to support!  What will those FF miles be worth when the airline, like so many others, is gone?  Just like the pyramid scheme of "always upgrade" weeks trades eventually someone has to come up with all that inventory and then the scheme collapses. Hiding the values worked for exchange companies for years but now the mini's and points systems exposed the game. The forces of the market make or break companies unless they are manipulated by cheats such as happened in the computer software world or by government intervention. Even when those happen eventually the market forces bring things back to a sustainable place. The flawed weeks trade systems are being forced into change - no class action will stop it.  If RCI is cheating its the market, not some trumped up class action, that will make them pay. In fact a great argument can be made that the very complaining that has been going on about poor trades has been self fulfilling in making the better weeks owners pass on depositing time they used to give up willingly. It may not be points or rentals but the "education" of the owners that have slashed the available trades. Read a few of these threads. Any top location/unit owner that would blindly place their time into a weeks system at RCI or II looks to be pretty foolish now. They can easily get a known value in return (SFX) a known value in points (RCI and others), a known value in the mini systems (the real winners so far) or rent at high rates then turn around and rent equal weeks for less than the fees. Why would anyone use a week for week trade with all the unknowns that carries now? Thats where the good inventory has gone. To alternatives to old school week for week trades.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 25, 2007)

No.  A week is worth what the market says it is worth, unlike the corrupt ,rigged and frozen numbers racket of RCI Points.  If a week is left on the shelf at 45 days, it is not suddenly a trade up.  It is that the market has said it was not worth what someone thought it to be worth.

45-day window inventory does not represent a trade up.  Short shelf life inventory is often devalued and marked down in the leisure travel industry, and timeshare is no different.  Indeed a last minute deposit is also devalued in trading power for the very same reason.  Last minute deposits and last minute withdrawals are treated alike.

I don't know where you get you ''facts'' for your conention about people not switching, but I suspect it is wrong.  If one surveyed the conversion brokers, it is more likely the reasons would be the cost and that people like what they have already.  I really doubt that the average timesharer thinks about this so-called trading up.




"Roger" said:


> So the explanation here is that the weeks that are worth a 10 aren't really worth that because the Weeks system will eventually downgrade their worth and that some lower value will become their "true worth."  Also, people should look for these "mediocre" weeks toward the 45 days out no holds barred trade period.
> 
> Shakespeare had it right:  Oh what tangled webs we weave.
> 
> Just for the record, by far the most popular reason given for not converting to points is that people say that they don't want to lose the ability to trade up.  In Points, they would have to pay more for such trades.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 25, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> Developers want to keep trading power secret so that their specific resort is the one that you should be buying at that very moment in time.  They want to claim that their resort is the best and there is no way to prove it one way or another.



The flip side for the Developers is that in Points what they do (and I know from someone high up at Barrier Island Station that they did it) is to politick RCI to overpoint their resort so that they can sell more.  This corrupts the system.  The term ''sold out resort'' has a sinsiter double meaning in the corrupt numbers racket of RCI Points.

As to this ''great'' inventory that sits on the shelf unclaimed, there are three things that could be done with it;
1) it could be left to expire unused.
2) it's value could be adjusted based on its apparent oversupply relative to demand so that it is open for exchange to a broader range of dues paying members, or
3) it could be taken out of the exchange system and rented to the general public for the benefit of the exchange company.

The Christel deHaan Weeks model, used pre-Cendant by RCI said #2
The greedy Cendant/RCI ''points and rentals'' model says #3

The reason for this sudden discovery of ''like for like'' by RCI is not to help the member, but an excuse to create more ''excess'' for RCI to rent to the general public.  IMHO it is appalling that any timesharer would prefer such inventory to go to rentals to the general public, so that the exchange company could pocket the money, rather than to their fellow dues and m/f paying timesharers.

Let's get back to the original issue, which is NOT ''which system is better?'' but ''why should one system get to mooch off of the inventory of the other?''
The parasitical Points system should be plucked off of the back of Weeks like the leech that it is.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 25, 2007)

Apparently you haven't done any reading about the underlying problems in Delta's bankruptcy.  I have not seen ANY analysis put ANY blame on their ff program.  If you have, please post where it can be found.  Indeed, Delta's upsetting its customers with their ill-conceived ff changes probably hurt their income side by driving away many of their loyal customers, which was extremely foolish from a business standpoint.

Again you are incorrectly claiming that Weeks is the older system.  Hapimag, the very FIRST timeshare, was (guess what!) a points-based mini-system!

The only way the market is going to deal with a quasi-monopoly like RCI (and for RCI-only resorts that do not educate owners about independents it is very effectively a monopoly) is to help grow the competition by encouraging people to use the independents.  These narrow, puny mini-systems are NEVER going to be real competition in the exchange market.

A points system, like RCI, that ignores supply and demand by such things as pandering to developers in overbuilt areas by overpointing those areas is going to gain a die-hard following among individual members there who can suddenly trade up trememdously due to those unwarranted numbers.  That's probably why it is no surprise that someone from an overbuilt area would beat the drums for points.  It is a scheme that allows them to trade up in a way that a market-based system like Weeks would not.  It is Points where the real ''trading up'' problem is, not Weeks.  It is also why these points advocates have consistently defended RCI's hiding all of the data used to come up with points numbers.  As long as that data remains hidden, the points numbers will continue to be corrupt and rigged.

Let's get back to the real issue, which is not ''which system is better'' but ''why should one system be allowed to parasitically mooch off of the inventory of the other?''




timeos2 said:


> A great example of how class action or consumer outrage can "win" the battle and lose the war. Last time I looked Delta was bankrupt and US Air wants to buy them out. Why? Because they have a unworkable cost model - including that unmaintainable FF system to support!  What will those FF miles be worth when the airline, like so many others, is gone?  Just like the pyramid scheme of "always upgrade" weeks trades eventually someone has to come up with all that inventory and then the scheme collapses. Hiding the values worked for exchange companies for years but now the mini's and points systems exposed the game. The forces of the market make or break companies unless they are manipulated by cheats such as happened in the computer software world or by government intervention. Even when those happen eventually the market forces bring things back to a sustainable place. The flawed weeks trade systems are being forced into change - no class action will stop it.  If RCI is cheating its the market, not some trumped up class action, that will make them pay. In fact a great argument can be made that the very complaining that has been going on about poor trades has been self fulfilling in making the better weeks owners pass on depositing time they used to give up willingly. It may not be points or rentals but the "education" of the owners that have slashed the available trades. Read a few of these threads. Any top location/unit owner that would blindly place their time into a weeks system at RCI or II looks to be pretty foolish now. They can easily get a known value in return (SFX) a known value in points (RCI and others), a known value in the mini systems (the real winners so far) or rent at high rates then turn around and rent equal weeks for less than the fees. Why would anyone use a week for week trade with all the unknowns that carries now? Thats where the good inventory has gone. To alternatives to old school week for week trades.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 25, 2007)

*One last time. The landscape has changed. Adjust.*



Carolinian said:


> Apparently you haven't done any reading about the underlying problems in Delta's bankruptcy.  I have not seen ANY analysis put ANY blame on their ff program.  If you have, please post where it can be found.  Indeed, Delta's upsetting its customers with their ill-conceived ff changes probably hurt their income side by driving away many of their loyal customers, which was extremely foolish from a business standpoint.



While I haven't followed the Delta saga closely the term "costly, legacy carrier" often used to describe it includes the high costs of union contracts, aging planes, bloated upper management and frequent flier programs.



Carolinian said:


> Again you are incorrectly claiming that Weeks is the older system.  Hapimag, the very FIRST timeshare, was (guess what!) a points-based mini-system!



No, I'll accept it as the original. I'm saying the chicken and egg question has no impact on which system is dominant now. No question weeks had the chance for many years but the pendulum has swung to a third choice - the large mini-systems - not for trading as much as an easy access to multiple resorts under a known set of rules. Those systems make exchanging what it was always best at - the occasional step outside your home resort (which is now your group of up to hundreds of resorts) to utilize a location they don't offer. But most of the time those owners simply use what they have in the mini-system as that meets their needs. The fact that most of those systems are points based means those owners are accustomed to knowing what a use period is worth and paying only that amount in point value. They sneer at the idea of simply giving up a full week without knowing what they will be able to get back. II had the start of that with request first. The points systems take it farther and people like that.  



Carolinian said:


> Let's get back to the real issue, which is not ''which system is better'' but ''why should one system be allowed to parasitically mooch off of the inventory of the other?''



I didn't realize that is the real issue but if it is there is a clear answer. One system "eats it's young" by systematically hiding values from the buyers. Once the owners of the better times find out they are subsidizing the lower value group they find alternatives. It is a pyramid scheme that demands a constant influx of new high end buyers to survive. Now that the majority of those buyers are in the mini-systems and that inventory never makes it to the weeks pool you have the lack of top end inventory you mention. It isn't points, rentals or grand manipulation by RCI/II but the system itself causing the decline.   I do find it ironic that so many weeks people preach moving your time out of RCI/II to teach them a lesson then bemoan the lack of inventory.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 25, 2007)

*I'm bored*

Well, I'm bored this morning so I tuned into the “RCI hate network”; “All hate all the time” – I’m glad to see that my challenge of a single shred of real evidence has not been answered.  There is no evidence, just rumors that can’t hold up in any court of law.

If you’re reading this just for amusement, then that’s fine – however if you are basing ANY timeshare decisions on rumors and innuendos then you are making a grave mistake.

One thing can be gleamed – RCI is renting weeks to pay for airline reservations that I just made on RCI Points – and if they snap up the most juicy weeks to rent, I could care less – I just want my round trip tickets back to Maui.

The juicy upgrades seem to be evaporating for exactly the reason John states – *the “good old days” of RCI weeks are history *– you can moan and groan and threaten all kinds of legal actions but the “good old days” are history.
*
The “good old days” are at RCI Points* – someday that will stop too – life changes by the second.  So stop fighting and join the raid on RCI Weeks – it’s a lot of fun.

Well, I’m out of here again until the next reincarnation of this same topic – or until I’m bored again.  :zzz:


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 25, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Let's get back to the original issue, which is NOT ''which system is better?'' but ''why should one system get to mooch off of the inventory of the other?''
> The parasitical Points system should be plucked off of the back of Weeks like the leech that it is.



Actually, according to the title of the thread, the original subject is:
"Where is all of the good inventory going at RCI?"

You started off with the presumption that Points interface to Weeks and Rentals is the cause of the lack of inventory in RCI.

I provide counter claims to what you assert.

The problem is NOT RCI Points interface to weeks and rentals.  The problem is RCI milking the exchange cash cow and doing whatever it can to maximize profit from their customers.  

There is no way to put this genie back into the bottle.  The world of timeshare exchange has changed forever since your beloved Christel DeHaan founded RCI.

If Christel DeHaan were to create a new exchange company today, she would probably create a point system.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jan 25, 2007)

*New Magazine.*

In addition to _Timesharing Today_, a new trade magazine is clearly needed. 

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


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 25, 2007)

Maybe you need to read more about airlines.  Most regard ff programs as an asset, not a liability.  They sell lots of miles wholesale to credit cards companies and others.

Mini-systems are a small fraction of timesharing, and looking at what is in the pipeline, will likely remain so.  The time when they had the biggest fraction of timesharing was when it was just Hapimag and the French developers.  

The points system, limited by space availible for paper and ink publication of tables, overaverages among groups of weeks, thus cheating the very best weeks of their true value.

But again, it doesn't matter which system you like best as long as RCI stops the ripoff they have created of one system by the other.





timeos2 said:


> While I haven't followed the Delta saga closely the term "costly, legacy carrier" often used to describe it includes the high costs of union contracts, aging planes, bloated upper management and frequent flier programs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## kwilson (Jan 25, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> So you do see plenty of trade ups.  That is exactly right.  Effective weeks exchange has always been about trade ups.



Please, I'm sure you haven't really read or understood my post. "Trade-ups" such as 1Br to 2Br are not really trade-ups when I am trading from high season to off season. They are even exchanges. No matter how many times you repeat the dogma you are still mistaken.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 25, 2007)

*Off season is off season no matter how you phrase it*



kwilson said:


> Please, I'm sure you haven't really read or understood my post. "Trade-ups" such as 1Br to 2Br are not really trade-ups when I am trading from high season to off season. They are even exchanges. No matter how many times you repeat the dogma you are still mistaken.



You are correct saying that a trade from a one bedroom to a 2 isn't a trade up if the 1 bedroom is high season and the 2 bedroom is mid to low. But if you are going from a mid to low season 1 BR to a mid to high season 2 BR that is a trade up. I don't know of many weeks owners willing to take the actual high demand time of year in the seasonal areas - June to August - and trade that time one for one to a 2 BR in, say, Orlando. Even if they do go from a 1 BR to a 2 BR they don't see it as an equal trade (and I'd have to agree for that timeframe even though both areas are "red").  But the minute you step outside those few weeks of the year (and maybe one or two Holiday weeks) the value of the seasonal area tanks. That 1 BR is now white or even blue time while the Orlando (or most other FL areas) are still red and still in demand. They have slower periods but never the drop off that the seasonal areas see. So a trade from a 1BR to a 2BR  - crossing the color "seasons" is in fact an upgrade.  An equal trade would be a 1BR or Studio in the higher demand area. The reverse is the fact that an Orlando owner that wanted one of those June-August weeks would expect to give up a 2 or 3 bedroom and perhaps only get a 1BR in trade. Because the season is involved they may accept that. But September to May they would rightfully expect an equal size unit or having the trade power to get one of those lower value weeks using only a studio or 1 br lockoff not the full 2 or 3 bedroom trade. Because of the unyielding nature of fixed weeks/units it isn't easy to make those differences match up. In the past the advantage went to the off season units which got upgrades and the loss to the better time owners of FL or other year round areas. Not anymore - thus the end to the free upgrade that so many of those seasonal resorts touted as a reason to own off season time.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 25, 2007)

kwilson said:


> Please, I'm sure you haven't really read or understood my post. "Trade-ups" such as 1Br to 2Br are not really trade-ups when I am trading from high season to off season. They are even exchanges. No matter how many times you repeat the dogma you are still mistaken.



Actually, I am quite open minded to sound logic.  You, on the other hand, contradict yourself.  You say that you see plenty of trade ups, then you say that a trade up isn't a trade up.  Not sure how to interpret such contradictions.  If sound logic is dogma, then I'm guilty as charged.

My claim is that RCI weeks is not a perfect supply and demand system such as you and Carolinian suggest.  I even provide counter examples that demostrates that it wasn't and still isn't perfect.  You even say that it all depends on how you define a like for like trade.  This is where your argument breaks down.  You don't provide proof that like for like changes are occurring or have occurred within RCI.  You simply state that it is and suggest the DeHaan model had it correct.  That is a fine point to believe, but without proof, that is dogma.

I define a like for like trade as the total cost of what I put in is roughly equivalent to the total cost for what it would cost me to exchange and/or rent the unit acquired.  If you polled 1M non-timesharers, I believe over 75% would agree with my definition.  We should test it.

So, if I buy a week for $500 with a maintenance fee of $50 and I leverage the RCI exchange system to take out a week would have cost me $700 to rent from the cheapest source, then that is a trade up.

The measurable amount of the trade up is $700 - $500 * .08 - $50 - $164 = $446.  

I use 8% as the cost of capital for investing in the original timeshare.  That $500 includes all closing costs.

This is not dogma.  It's actually financial assessment of alternative choices.   

Ask DaveM if my assessment is sound financially.

So, the reality is that I am actually seeing the timeshare picture crystal clear.  I did not subscribe to the "dogma" that others perpetuate on these boards.  I came up with a fact based model to compare each timeshare in an apples-to-apples way.

To me a trade up is when you pay $164 to get something worth $700 and only paying $90 for it.  The amount of that trade up is $446.

What's your model for proving that RCI exchanges are are like for like?   Now, who is really speaking dogma?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 25, 2007)

Okay, let's test the definitions of like for like and see who has a stronger argument for determining whether or not a trade is like for like.

Let's put names to examples.   I see that Kwilson owns at Durban Sands.  Good example.  The numbers I cite are probably roughly what Durban Sands sold for many years ago in the hey day of South Africa trading.

Let's also use Orange Lake Country Club.  How about a nice exchange into week 52.  That's pretty close to what I described above as an exchange.

Now, let's do the analysis.

Say I buy a Durban Sands for $500 including closing costs and my MF was $50 per year.  And, I exchange for a week 52 into Orange Lake Country Club in a 2 bedroom, 2 bath unit.  I feel quite confident that that was once a trade that was fairly easy to do.  Not sure if it is today.  But certainly before Black Sunday when RCI fixed part of its TP formula.

Now, I pay an exchange fee to get it.  Let's use $139 when it was a couple of years ago.

Does anyone believe that this is NOT a trade that was or is still possible?

Now the question.  Is this a Trade up or NOT?

I believe 99% of the free world claim that this was a trade up.  I happen to estimate that trade up to be in the $400-500 range.  But, it is a trade up nonetheless.

Those hardline Crystal DeHaan supporters would claim that this is NOT a trade up.  That the RCI weeks supply and demand mapping system is so perfect that this trade was only available becuase it represented an even trade.  That even trade was due to the fact that Orlando and Orange Lake is overbuilt, etc.

If that were true, then the rental rates for Orange Lake Week 52's should be about $100.  They aren't.  $700-800 is about right.

At the end of the day, without a way to quantify whether or not an exchange is a trade up, a trade down or an even trade is pure dogma unless a measurable comparison methodology can be offered to back up the claims.  I've provided one.  Does anyone have a better one?


----------



## Jya-Ning (Jan 25, 2007)

Boca:

By your definition, all developer purchased week that put on the exchange are trade down.  And all blue season east beach resort put on the exchanges are very likely a trade down  Although most of the time when I decide to make an exchange I use the same way to determine if I just want to do exchange or rental, I don't think that is good measure.

I guess if you use rental model, you can use the rack rate * chance of rent out as an index.

So assume one  beach 2 BR rack rate in summer is $1500 with chance of rent 100%, the other newer improved beach 2BR rack rate is $2000 but only rent out at 75%, the exchange between both week are equal.

Jya-Ning

Come to think of it, the one with 100% rent out rate is actually a trade down, because I believe a lot of experience Tugger will be able to get the $2000 one but rent out only 75% at last min with $300 or less cost.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 25, 2007)

Jya-Ning said:


> Boca:
> 
> By your definition, all developer purchased week that put on the exchange are trade down.  And all blue season east beach resort put on the exchanges are very likely a trade down  Although most of the time when I decide to make an exchange I use the same way to determine if I just want to do exchange or rental, I don't think that is good measure.
> 
> ...



That is Exactly why you shouldn't buy them.  How many people on these boards advocate buying from the developer?


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 26, 2007)

*Measure of value for an exchange*

How much someone paid for their week is completely irrelvent to what it is worth as an exchange.  If it were a factor, then the poor sap who paid way too much for an inland blue week from a developer would have higher trading power than a savvy timeshare buyer who snapped up a December eBay bargain for a prime summer week on the beach.  That would be nonsense.

Neither does the amount of the maintenance fee have anything to do with trading value.  If it did the owner at a mismanaged resort with exhorbitant m/f's would have a higher trading power than someone owning at a well managed resort with reasonable m/f's.  Again, that would be nonsense.

Trading value is based on two things; 1) how many people want to trade in (demand) and 2) how many people are willing to deposit (supply).

Anything else is either one of the components of these two factors or it is horsehockey.

And before you start using hypothetical examples from South Africa and Florida to try to justify your theory, maybe you should look at some facts, like the Availibility tables in the European version of the RCI directory.  Those show that South Africa has a much better supply/demand curve than Florida.  Based on supply and demand in that RCI table, that South AFrica owner is probably trading down when he trades into Florida.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 26, 2007)

If you think Florida is not ''seasonal'' for exchange purposes, I suggest you look at fact by consulting the Availibility tables in the European version of the RCI directory.  They will show you otherwise.

The ''highly seasonal'' resorts you speak of are in the far north, not on the southeastern coast.  ''Golf season'' is quite popular not only in Hilton Head, but also Myrtle Beach.  On the Outer Banks, the shrinking number of seaonal restaurants are now mostly opening in early March and closing either after Thanksgiving or even after New Years.  Some are reopening as early as February 1.  Timeshare resorts are generally full from the start of Spring Break in March through to Thanksgiving, and February occupancy is not bad.

If RCI were honest and not pandering to developers, there would be a fair amount of at least white, and likely blue time in overbuilt parts of Florida, based on supply and demand.  Similarly, it is a real belly laugh that hurricane season is most of the Caribbean is ''red'' if you have ever travelled there then.

The reason that a blue week from almost anywhere trades in Orlando most of the time is that they have similar supply/demand curves.  Points artificially papers over this fact of life by assigning inflated points numbers to pander to the developers there.  I can fully understand why owners there would go out of their way to defend RCI Points, because it is a gravy train that guarantees that they can always trade up instead of being held back by the real ''worth'' of their weeks to the exchange system.




timeos2 said:


> You are correct saying that a trade from a one bedroom to a 2 isn't a trade up if the 1 bedroom is high season and the 2 bedroom is mid to low. But if you are going from a mid to low season 1 BR to a mid to high season 2 BR that is a trade up. I don't know of many weeks owners willing to take the actual high demand time of year in the seasonal areas - June to August - and trade that time one for one to a 2 BR in, say, Orlando. Even if they do go from a 1 BR to a 2 BR they don't see it as an equal trade (and I'd have to agree for that timeframe even though both areas are "red").  But the minute you step outside those few weeks of the year (and maybe one or two Holiday weeks) the value of the seasonal area tanks. That 1 BR is now white or even blue time while the Orlando (or most other FL areas) are still red and still in demand. They have slower periods but never the drop off that the seasonal areas see. So a trade from a 1BR to a 2BR  - crossing the color "seasons" is in fact an upgrade.  An equal trade would be a 1BR or Studio in the higher demand area. The reverse is the fact that an Orlando owner that wanted one of those June-August weeks would expect to give up a 2 or 3 bedroom and perhaps only get a 1BR in trade. Because the season is involved they may accept that. But September to May they would rightfully expect an equal size unit or having the trade power to get one of those lower value weeks using only a studio or 1 br lockoff not the full 2 or 3 bedroom trade. Because of the unyielding nature of fixed weeks/units it isn't easy to make those differences match up. In the past the advantage went to the off season units which got upgrades and the loss to the better time owners of FL or other year round areas. Not anymore - thus the end to the free upgrade that so many of those seasonal resorts touted as a reason to own off season time.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 26, 2007)

*Rubbish!*

I can’t let this go unchallenged.

There is no proof that RCI Weeks uses supply and demand (At least a sane definition) – there is ample proof that RCI Points do – their point charts are available for the depositors (supply) and the exchangers (demand).  These tables advise folks of supply and demand – you may not agree with RCI Points but both parties have ample warning at to the worth of a week.

RCI Weeks has but one purpose to make their stockholders wealthy – beyond that we must guess as to how RCI weeks works – it’s all a big secret – and for good reason; whatever RCI weeks must do to make that bottom line shine is exactly what will happen in their secret system.  Just who is going to stop this; were are the independent CPA reports stating that this is a "fair and balanced system" - there are none and will never be.  If there is anything to ask for its that -get a CPA firm to certify that there is no hanky-panky going on with the exchanges.

What we can gleam from RCI Weeks is that they use a demented definition of supply and demand – one that perhaps changes by the second (all of this, by everyone, is just a guess).  I’m assuming that the same demented definitions in RCI Weeks are used by II – so here is what you can expect:

You space bank your week into RCI and last year it had great trading power – now you can’t see anything – what happened?  Well you did what you were supposed to do – you locked in a hot holiday week, unfortunately for you so did about 50 other owners who immediately deposited them into RCI in the last hour and guess what – the RCI computer has forecasted an over supply and has given your week very low trading power to get rid of it.

Last year you were late by a day and thus the glut was gone by the time you space banked.  If you had waited a few days your week would have more trading power – this is RCI’s one of the definitions of supply and demand.

The other one is, and this again is just a guess, whenever RCI needs a little boost to that bottom line they just raise and lower the trading power for a few minutes and lots of exchanges happen.  They then sneak it back up to it’s normal demented value.

Now I have about as much proof as those who claim I’m wrong – we are left to the “good intentions” of RCI Weeks and many here demand that RCI is a crook – well what do crooks do in secret?

To summarize:
*To call RCI a crook one second and then to say that they provide a “level playing field” the next second is rubbish – so is the secret RCI week system.*


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 26, 2007)

If I were to take the flip side and discuss your apparent infatuation with RCI Points, I might risk getting my post deleted.

I have repeatedly posted my own attitude toward RCI, but not in some time, so I will do it again.  I greatly respect RCI for having created the best timeshare exchange system that has ever been - back when it was all one system, not divided into ''Weeks'' and "Points''.  I would like nothing better in timeshare exchanging than having the old RCI back.  However, they have made some serious missteps since they were gobbled up by Cendant.  I have never joined the ''resign your membership and get your money back'' crowd when people have advocated that on timeshare boards.  My own suggestion has been more measured, in the (probably longshot) hope that things will turn around at RCI.  I have suggested letting ones membership ride until it runs out, start exploring alternatives with the independent exchange companies, and limit your deposits to RCI.  If you want to characterize that as ''hate'' so be it.

I have also suggested proactive measures that would protect the Weeks members such as putting a firewall between the systems, or at least modifying the grids to make them more fair to Weeks owners.  But maybe, that can be summed up as ''hate'' too.

I do hope that Weeks members do not take the attitudes you express toward Weeks as being that of all Points members.  But is shows why Weeks members and resorts should probably insist that the outsiders from Points be totally shut out of our system.

This ''real evidence'' argument has been a broken record of Points advocates going way back to the roll out of GPN, the early name of RCI Points.  When Sky Auction  started selling off rentals that obviously came from RCI, this crowd loudly screamed ''there is no _evidence!_'' but it was not long before Tuggers started winning those auctions and getting standard confirmations from RCI for the week rental they won on Sky Auction.  That is only one of a number of such examples.  Clever ploy, but it doesn't hold up.  What you admit as to looting inventory to pay for air tickets is evidence enough of serious wrongdoing by RCI toward its Weeks members.  The fraudulent crossover grid numbers are there for all to see.  And then we have sources like Bootleg and Anon who have reported to us what they have seen with their own eyes on the RCI computers.  Personally I trust their reports more than I do the bluster of Points advocates.

Oh, and the ''juicy upgrades'' have moved over to RCI Points for those who own in overpointed areas, and indeed quite a few other places as I have pointed out with specific examples in the past.  It is the Points system, not Weeks, that is chock full of the trades up.  Part of that is systematic from the use of overaveraging - putting too broad a group of weeks in one pot, significantly devaluing the best weeks while significantly overpointing the lesser weeks.  One example I use is how the corrupt numbers racket of RCI Points allows someone to exchange a blue March week in inland New Bern, NC for a same size August summer week at a beachfront resort on the Outer Banks, and even have points left over.  I have never heard of anyone making such a massive trade up in the Weeks system, but it is locked in using the corrupt RCI Points system.




PerryM said:


> Well, I'm bored this morning so I tuned into the “RCI hate network”; “All hate all the time” – I’m glad to see that my challenge of a single shred of real evidence has not been answered.  There is no evidence, just rumors that can’t hold up in any court of law.
> 
> If you’re reading this just for amusement, then that’s fine – however if you are basing ANY timeshare decisions on rumors and innuendos then you are making a grave mistake.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 26, 2007)

*Rubbish*

Supply and demand are not static (like RCI Points).  They are dynamic (like RCI Weeks).  The proof is clear that RCI Points does NOT use supply and demand.  Frozen numbers alone prove that.  The charts are like wage and price controls, rent controls, or the command economy of the old eastern bloc; someone on high dictating values rather than the ever changing patterns of supply and demand.  RCI Points reflects no sane definition of supply and demand.

The other problem is the huge incentive for the policking by developers to rig the points numbers that is created by a system like RCI Points with published numbers (an incentive to cook the books) and a secret system of setting them (the opportunity to cook the books).  As long as a points system is organized in this corrupt manner, it will never have any credibility for fairness.

A system like Weeks where the trading values are secret does indeed create the opportunity to cheat, but as long as the numbers are secret, there is no motive to do so since a developer cannot profit by manipulating numbers that will remain secret anyway.  The problem comes in when an exchange company starts renting from the spacebank pool to non-members.  Suddenly with its hand in the till, it also has a motive to put its thumb on the scales.  This is one of the biggest problems with exchange company rentals because rentals give the exchange company a huge conflict of interest.  

The key is a system free of conflicts of interest.  RCI Points is rife with them. RCI Weeks would be free of them if we can put an end to exchange company rentals to the general public.





PerryM said:


> I can’t let this go unchallenged.
> 
> There is no proof that RCI Weeks uses supply and demand (At least a sane definition) – there is ample proof that RCI Points do – their point charts are available for the depositors (supply) and the exchangers (demand).  These tables advise folks of supply and demand – you may not agree with RCI Points but both parties have ample warning at to the worth of a week.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Jan 26, 2007)

*Where are those dynamic tools to help me?*

I have a new cell phone – the Treo 700 – this allows me full internet browsing capability.  One of the things I also have is TeleNet – it’s a live GPS system right in my cell phone – don’t need one in the car and rental car anymore.

One of it’s features is that I can get the current gas prices of all gas stations within a 5 mile radius – the prices are dynamic and change each time the station updates its prices.  When I think about filling up the cars (4 of them) I simply check this and when I see the first sign of increasing/decreasing prices I jump in a car and fill it up.  I select the cheapest gas station and it plots the route for me – then it tells me “go left” or “go right” – I love this thing; its right in my cell phone!

Vacationing on the highway allows me to see upcoming gas stations and decide if I want to turn off the highway to fill up – this is just fantastic.

So where are the dynamic tools RCI Weeks supplies to do the same with my exchanges?  Where is that trading power number so I can see it go up and down by the second?  Where are the alerts?  Where the heck is anything to help me?

Real time supply and demand are fine if you have to tools to make decisions based upon those dynamic figures – there are none with RCI Weeks.  This makes those dynamic values worthless when it comes time for me to do vacation planning – I haven’t the foggiest idea what my week is worth this second and what I can get.

RCI Points does the next best thing – it provides yearly tables that do reflect changes to supply and demand over the past year – however real-time dynamic values are not yet available – RCI Points could to this as the system matures; RCI Weeks will never do this.

So for right now, RCI Points gives the best their technology allows – yearly dynamic tables for me to do my vacation planning - RCI Weeks is stuck on stupid.


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 26, 2007)

Perry, 

You are forgetting one essential feature of RCI's dynamic, interactive supply and demand...

If you have $50 in your wallet and you use your TRIO to find the best gas station within five miles, you will have to pay the $50 for a tank of gas no matter how much it actually costs.  (Huh!)  Yup, that is how the RCI dynamic, interactive supply and demand works.  If you can afford a week, you give up whatever you have one for one. (That is not considered a "frozen" value however.)


----------



## PerryM (Jan 26, 2007)

*What's that smell?*

Every time I get on an airplane I wish I could ask folks to write down what they paid for their ticket – it’s insane and the reason the airlines are always in and round the bankruptcy court building – too many former pilots running an airline.  Just about everyone in that plane paid a different price.  We are all on the plane going to the same exact place.

Same with RCI Weeks – take 50 weeks at a big resort and if the trading power numbers were made available it would resemble the answers the passengers gave – vastly different numbers that are just as insane.  We are all checking into the resort at the same time - why are we paying different prices?

EVERY one of those 50 exchanges takes place in RCI Points at the same rate – the value of the week is available for everyone to make intelligent decisions as to how to spend their points (currency).  We are all checking into the resort at the same time, the price should be the same.

Buying a refrigerator costs about as much as the MF we pay for a timeshare week.  I don’t need my cell phone to plot the instant price of that refrigerator – I can go online with my cell phone and check it at Sears, Home Depot, Lowes, etc or click on a link and the phone will dial the number of the store for me.

More than likely we got the Sunday paper and looked at the ads – the price of a refrigerator doesn’t change second to second – let’s get real here.  The vacillations in supply and demand are not so violent that yearly figures aren’t going to be off that much.

What we are really talking about is to know the value of your week.  You know how much it costs to buy and how much it costs to pay that MF and with RCI points you know how it compares to every other timeshare in RCI Points.  And just where is the value of that week in RCI Weeks – it’s what ever RCI needs to make an exchange and make a buck or two for their stockholders.

This debate about supply and demand in RCI Weeks is just a red herring – it’s just as dead and smelly.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 26, 2007)

It is not just about technology.  It is about rigging numbers to pander to developers, permited by the hidden methodology for setting numbers.  As long as that is hidden, the system will remain corrupt and any technolody is useless.

The RCI directories, BTW, come out every two years, not yearly, so the numbers are frozen for two years periods, and in practice longer than that.

I have said long ago that I would have absolutely no problem with a system with public numbers as long as it was dynamic changing at frequent intervals, based on real supply and demand, based on individual weeks not overlarge groups of weeks, had a published methodology for setting the numbers, had the ability to exchange within a range, and was published electronically to accomodate all of that.  A paper and ink publication method is far too limited to ever accomodate a fair published exact number system.

In the meantime, the system with the least opportunity for manipulation is best.  In that respect, the old RCI weeks-based system (before rentals) did that.  There were no conflicts of interest or invitations for politicking or pandering like there are in Points.

Points is the system that most facilitates trades up and thats why some of those who seem to almost have a fixation with trades up love it so much.

Experience is a short time gives you a good indication of what your week is worth.  A numbers cheat sheet (double meaning there!) is completely unnecessary.





PerryM said:


> I have a new cell phone – the Treo 700 – this allows me full internet browsing capability.  One of the things I also have is TeleNet – it’s a live GPS system right in my cell phone – don’t need one in the car and rental car anymore.
> 
> One of it’s features is that I can get the current gas prices of all gas stations within a 5 mile radius – the prices are dynamic and change each time the station updates its prices.  When I think about filling up the cars (4 of them) I simply check this and when I see the first sign of increasing/decreasing prices I jump in a car and fill it up.  I select the cheapest gas station and it plots the route for me – then it tells me “go left” or “go right” – I love this thing; its right in my cell phone!
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 26, 2007)

Welcome to the travel industry, Perry.  You could substitute ''hotel room'' for airline ticket and the situation would be the same, for example.  The travel industry, especially the leisure travel industry, and the supply and demand that drive price, ARE dynamic.  That is just a fact of life.

Let me give one example.  There was a big event organized for the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers first flight at Kitty Hawk.  This occured in Week 50, normally one of the worst occupancy weeks of the year.  The hotels were charging summer rack rates and were full.  A friend of mine who normally uses his OBX t/s week 50 for duck hunting, rented it instead and got a premium even over usual summer t/s rental prices.  With the demand spike, RCI Weeks could adjust and require some heavy duty weeks to trade in.  With Points, however, the price was frozen.  What do you bet RCI did with their Points deposits for that week - let Points members reserve them for the low frozen point numbers or rented them to the general public for the going rental rates?????  How honest is a system that creates those incentives?????




PerryM said:


> Every time I get on an airplane I wish I could ask folks to write down what they paid for their ticket – it’s insane and the reason the airlines are always in and round the bankruptcy court building – too many former pilots running an airline.  Just about everyone in that plane paid a different price.  We are all on the plane going to the same exact place.
> 
> Same with RCI Weeks – take 50 weeks at a big resort and if the trading power numbers were made available it would resemble the answers the passengers gave – vastly different numbers that are just as insane.  We are all checking into the resort at the same time - why are we paying different prices?
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 26, 2007)

*Set up a straw man, knock it down . . .*

You might start with a fair comparison.  You use probably the most demanded week of the year for OLCC, but only a generic week for DS.  A fair comparision would be with a prime school holiday week at DS, and then guess what?  I suspect DS would have a much better supply/demand curve when it is prime vs prime, and possibly even a higher rental.  But then, again, rental involves yet another apples and oranges comparision, dollars vs the long undervalued (although now somewhat less so as the dollar has fallen) SA rand.




BocaBum99 said:


> Okay, let's test the definitions of like for like and see who has a stronger argument for determining whether or not a trade is like for like.
> 
> Let's put names to examples.   I see that Kwilson owns at Durban Sands.  Good example.  The numbers I cite are probably roughly what Durban Sands sold for many years ago in the hey day of South Africa trading.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Jan 26, 2007)

*Guessing versus knowing how to plan vacations*

Carilinian,

What’s missing from RCI Weeks is the ability for an owner to make logical decisions.  There is very little inventory that ever shows up, in RCI Weeks, for searching – the vast majority of great trades occurs when ongoing searches are matched.  The junk left over are the scraps that no one wants.


*A RCI Week member has no ability to make logical decisions – they are all guesses:*

“I guess I know what my unit’s trading power (TP) is”

“I guess the TP is the same as last year”

“I guess I can get this resort on this week”

“I guess my 2 weak trading weeks can’t be combined into 1 more powerful trader”

Guess, guess, guess.  I guess I can plan for vacation.



*With RCI Points, and Disney, and FF and WM I KNOW what’s going on:*

“I know I have the points/credits to go to Maui this year”

“I know what I’m giving up to exchange is fine with me”

“I know that I can combine my 2 weak units into one more powerful exchange”

“I know that I can pick one week over the other in terms of the cost”

“I know that I can borrow usage from next year’s usage”


I know, I know, I know – I know I can plan for the future.


This is why a point system is much more user friendly than the old week based systems.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 26, 2007)

*All it takes is a little experience*

All you have to do is use the system a little while and you know well enough what the answers are.  It didn't take me long at all to know what sort of range I could trade in with my weeks.  Once the online system went up, thats where I have done the vast majority of my trades, not waiting for an ongoing search.

And speaking of ongoing searchs, Points doesn't offer this convenience.  If a Points member wants a tough exchange, they had better get up at the crack of dawn 10 months out to snag it or it will be gone, like those summer ff tickets to Europe, and even less likely than the ff tickets to ever return.  This is just one of the many more user friendly aspects of Weeks.

But again, the issue is not Points vs. Weeks.  It is RCI's unfair practice of allowing Points members to loot our Weeks inventory and what that does to the Weeks inventory.  Time to bring a screeching halt to that fraud.  If we could just get Points hands our of our Weeks inventory pocket, picking that pocket, Points could go on its merry way as far as I am concerned. I am sure it will have its following as Hapimag has from the beginning, but it will always be a minority.




PerryM said:


> Carilinian,
> 
> What’s missing from RCI Weeks is the ability for an owner to make logical decisions.  There is very little inventory that ever shows up, in RCI Weeks, for searching – the vast majority of great trades occurs when ongoing searches are matched.  The junk left over are the scraps that no one wants.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Jan 26, 2007)

*Hope this helps*

There is no way, that I’m aware of, to decide whether my unit I just deposited has a chance to exchange into week 37 at resort X or week 38 or week 36 – I’m flexible to do any of the 3 weeks – I just don’t know that with RCI Weeks.

RCI Points tells me right away if I have the points to get 1,2, or all 3 weeks so I know I’m going to have to get up at midnight 10 months out (CST I guess) and do the searches.  I certainly am not stating that RCI Points is a panacea but it has the ability to become more user friendly over time.  Whether RCI Points wants to do this is up to them.  RCI Weeks has no chance of doing this.

Whether RCI Points is snapping up RCI Weeks is pale in comparison in being in the wrong exchange company.  If folks want to plan 10 – 12 months out then RCI Points is a much more logical place to start and stay with in the future.

I don’t know if RCI is doing anything illegal or unethical or against the rules they wrote – that’s not my job as a consumer – my job is to maximize my investment in them and compare my alternatives.

I hope I’ve shed some light on what the consumer should really be focusing on – vacation planning and not legal actions.


----------



## Dave*H (Jan 26, 2007)

Seems to me that it makes sense to have two systems.  There are advantages and disadvantages to both.  With two systems, the consumer can ultimately decide.  If one system is superior in the eyes of most consumers, the other will ultimately disappear.  I think the real question is, if points is so great, why must it be coupled to a weeks system.  WM, Disney, and FF have points only systems that are able to stand on their own.  Why must RCI have a points system that is joined to a weeks system instead of a standalone system?  Answer: I gives them more flexibility.

If the two systems are separated, can they still manipulate the weeks system?  Answer: Yes, but they cannot manipulate it to the advantage of one system over the other.  The weaknesses and strengths of each system must stand on their own.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 26, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Every time I get on an airplane I wish I could ask folks to write down what they paid for their ticket – it’s insane and the reason the airlines are always in and round the bankruptcy court building – too many former pilots running an airline.  Just about everyone in that plane paid a different price.  We are all on the plane going to the same exact place.
> 
> Same with RCI Weeks – take 50 weeks at a big resort and if the trading power numbers were made available it would resemble the answers the passengers gave – vastly different numbers that are just as insane.  We are all checking into the resort at the same time - why are we paying different prices?
> 
> ...



Perry - It amazes me that RCI & II, who can't keep a mere web site functioning for more than a few days at a time on a good week, can't answer a phone or answer a question in any kind of reasonable time frame, place proper point values on resort (according to some) or keep track of what they have in inventory to rent/sell/exchange yet they can operate what is apparently one of the great real-time systems ever developed to precisely determine the exact value of any week of timeshare at any given moment.  Or at least  that is what this red herring argument seems to imply. 

You have it exactly right. It's all about consistent values (no need for a minute by minute or even monthly update), informing owners of that value and the owners getting to decide what makes sense as a trade and what doesn't. The is no market in weeks as all the decisions are made in secret. There is no making a choice to combine values from more than one deposit to get a "super" exchange in weeks - the process doesn't allow that. It only allows rare upgrades and frequent down grades but none of it is in the light of day. The opposite argument of flexibility and better valuation because there is no pressure from developers is quaint but simply makes no sense. The opportunity to "play games" is naturally far greater when all values are hidden than when they are openly published. The pressure to correct them if they are wrong is far greater when anyone who picks up the wishbook sees them. Who knows if they are wrong in the secret society method?  

I'm glad there are many choices and that includes the weeks systems. But I sure don't want to play in that world of deception.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jan 26, 2007)

*Forrest Gump Timeshare Trading.*

Timehsare exchanging the way I (increasingly) do it is like Forrest Gump's mama's box of chocolates -- I'm never sure what I'll get. 

That because when I'm trying it week-for-week, not only am I not sure what I'll get, _nobody's_ sure.  (But the crapshoot aspects of the venture seem to be part of the attraction, based on all I've been reading here lately.) 

And when I'm trying it using points, I know how many of'm I've got & I know how many it takes to get a week where I want to go, but I don't know till I look whether anything where I want to go will be available when I want to go there.  That's because so much "inventory" is still those old fashioned, plain vanilla, conventional straight-weeks timeshares.  If nothing is available in points, I'm not necessarily out of luck -- I can try _Raiding The Weeks Inventory_, which may or may not work out -- I never know till I try. 

Lately I've been making it tougher on myself by going more for _Instant Exchange_ raids & _Last Calls_ because I always like bargains better than I like paying full freight.  Sometimes _Instant Exchanges_ & _Last Calls_ are plentiful -- e.g., central Florida in September, early December, & early January (just the times I like to go there, as luck would have it).  Other times, less so.  So it goes. 

In essence, I'm happy as long as I can vacation in luxury timeshare condos for approximately Motel 6 & Super 8 rates.  It's up to me to figure out how to do that, juggling my vacation schedule accordingly & jumping through whatever hoops RCI & Co. come up with.  It's not up to RCI to tailor the process specially for me -- it's up to me to figure out how to work the system, sometimes doing week-for-week trades, sometimes doing straight-points trades, sometimes taking _Last Calls_, &  sometimes even _Raiding The Weeks Inventory_, via _Instant Exchange_ & otherwise, as needed.  

So far, so good. 
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 26, 2007)

Dave_H said:


> .  WM, Disney, and FF have points only systems that are able to stand on their own.  ...



Sorry, I don't understand this statement????  

Both WM and FF are coupled to RCI Weeks.  (They do not "stand on their own.")   If someone from WM or FF wants to trade for something in Weeks, they can.  They have full access to the Weeks inventory.  The reverse is not true.  Someone in RCI (Points or Weeks) only has access to what WM and FF gives up when one of their members exchange for something in Weeks.  (This is the same arrangement that exists between Points and Weeks).

Disney is a little different.  As I understand it (as of a few years ago), members do not have full access to II in that Disney will not allow their members to trade down below a given level.  (They negotiate the trades.)  Still Disney members can get anything above a certain quality in II.  The reverse is not true.  II members do not have full access to Disney.

If Carolinian is going to get a firewall between points and weeks, a similar firewall will have to be erected between weeks and HGVC, FF, WM, Shell Vacation Club, Bluegreen, etc.  II will have firewalls between Disney, Marriott, Sunterra, Hyatt, etc. and the rest of II.  I don't think anyone will be happy with that.


----------



## Dave*H (Jan 26, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> Both WM and FF are coupled to RCI Weeks.  (They do not "stand on their own.")


You are correct.  I guess I was considering that most of the usage by WM owners is probably for stays at WM resorts.  All of that usage is true points.  However, the fact that they can access II weeks means it is not unlike RCI points with access RCI weeks.  Are there any points systems that stand on their own or all they all dependent on being attached to a weeks system?  Weeks functioned for a long time without being attached to a points system and still does with the independent exchange companies.  I wonder why there are no standalone points systems?


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 26, 2007)

Dave_H said:


> ... I wonder why there are no standalone points systems?


You pretty much answered that in your prior note... flexibility.  While trading within any of these systems is great (priority trading, lower exchange fees) sometimes people want to go where their system is not.  

It is not like the large exchange system doesn't benefit, however.  (Trying to avoid the Points-Weeks debate) ...Could you imagine II with no Marriotts, Hyatts, Disneys, Sunterras, WM's (and some others that I am not thinking of at the moment)?  All of these systems allow for internal trading but only give something up to II when one of the members makes an exterior trade.  As one sided as that might seem, I don't think members of II would want to see a firewall between them and these systems.  Both sides are better off.


----------



## PeelBoy (Jan 26, 2007)

Regarding mini systems, I have had Sunterra for 8 years and find it increasingly difficult to trade internally, except those in Williamsburg and Orlando. Interestingly, I have access to most top resorts via II, except red hot weeks.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 26, 2007)

*Points could easily stand alone or trade between themselves*



Dave_H said:


> You are correct.  I guess I was considering that most of the usage by WM owners is probably for stays at WM resorts.  All of that usage is true points.  However, the fact that they can access II weeks means it is not unlike RCI points with access RCI weeks.  Are there any points systems that stand on their own or all they all dependent on being attached to a weeks system?  Weeks functioned for a long time without being attached to a points system and still does with the independent exchange companies.  I wonder why there are no standalone points systems?



The various points systems you mentioned could stand alone but have been courted by II/RCI to obtain access to what most weeks systems correctly see as premium resorts. It isn't a one way street. The points systems see the weeks groups as a way to offer the occasional trip outside of the group to it's members. In return they give up a use period, usually a week, that otherwise the weeks systems would never be able to get. There are no weeks owners at DVC or the newer Wyndham resorts that could offer II or RCI use at those locations. By establishing a cross agreement the weeks system can obtain those for it's members. The majority of use by the points system members are within the system itself. The big losers if that ended would be the weeks systems not the points side. That is why II seems to bend over backwards to obtain the link to the various mini-systems. They want the name and apparently don't care what they have to give up to get it. RCI has been more aggressive by creating it's own points rather than simply allowing the mini-systems to have exclusive privileges over the regular members. It has, as is well documented, made it's own points members a super-set of weeks.  But it isn't any different than what II does with DVC or Sunterra.  No matter what point system it is given more access because it inherently has the ability to better adjust value taken and value received and the clout to get special privileges from the weeks side so they can claim the name on their roster.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 26, 2007)

*II as an individual owner is unusable - You need a group*



PeelBoy said:


> Regarding mini systems, I have had Sunterra for 8 years and find it increasingly difficult to trade internally, except those in Williamsburg and Orlando. Interestingly, I have access to most top resorts via II, except red hot weeks.



I had totally given up on II until I started dealing strictly through the Sunterra corporate account. It effectively gives me a points account with II, it sees resorts I was never able to get using the exact same underlying ownership as an II member and, best of all, it doesn't usually even require that I use the full value of that ownership (sun options) to get those resorts. Change back as it were.  Plus there is no annual II fee. It almost makes II a viable option. But it sure doesn't make being a mere standard II member seem very attractive as every good group they hook up with (Sunterra, DVC, Marritt, etc) all get these types of special treatment leaving the poor II weeks member far worse off in the pecking order.


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 27, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> ...It effectively gives me a points account with II, it sees resorts I was never able to get using the exact same underlying ownership as an II member and, best of all, it doesn't usually even require that I use the full value of that ownership (sun options) to get those resorts. Change back as it were.  ...


John,

Despite Carolinian's protests, he should be more worried about the mini-systems that connect with RCI and II than those owned by Wyndham.  I'll bet my bottom dollar that Sunterra is able to do this because they get to see the trading power numbers and then offer II the very lowest power unit needed for an exchange.  So many of these mini-systems have direct access to the RCI/II computers, why wouldn't they do this?


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 27, 2007)

*10 months, not 12, and this makes a BIG difference*

12 months out with RCI Points?  Wrong! Except for very limited exceptions, most Points inventory opens up only 10 months out, which is VERY user unfriendly to those of us who use ff miles for our air.  You see, ff tickets open up 11 months out, and by the 10 month mark, tickets are often gone for the most desirable times and destinations.  This makes it particularly tough in that airlines are becoming more and more restrictive on extending ff reservations for much time at all.  The 2 year exchange flexibility of RCI Weeks is MUCH for user friendly if you also want to use ff miles for your air.
This is but one of the reasons that I have absolutely no interest in the crappy RCI Points system.

I would agree that is the State Attorney Generals who should be focusing on consumer protection litigation to shut down this ripoff of Weeks members.  I have said all along that they are better for accomplishing what needs to be accomplished than class action lawsuits. But the class action guys got there first.




PerryM said:


> There is no way, that I’m aware of, to decide whether my unit I just deposited has a chance to exchange into week 37 at resort X or week 38 or week 36 – I’m flexible to do any of the 3 weeks – I just don’t know that with RCI Weeks.
> 
> RCI Points tells me right away if I have the points to get 1,2, or all 3 weeks so I know I’m going to have to get up at midnight 10 months out (CST I guess) and do the searches.  I certainly am not stating that RCI Points is a panacea but it has the ability to become more user friendly over time.  Whether RCI Points wants to do this is up to them.  RCI Weeks has no chance of doing this.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 27, 2007)

The only one I know of is the original points-based mini-system, Hapimag, which has NEVER traded through either RCI or II.




Dave_H said:


> You are correct.  I guess I was considering that most of the usage by WM owners is probably for stays at WM resorts.  All of that usage is true points.  However, the fact that they can access II weeks means it is not unlike RCI points with access RCI weeks.  Are there any points systems that stand on their own or all they all dependent on being attached to a weeks system?  Weeks functioned for a long time without being attached to a points system and still does with the independent exchange companies.  I wonder why there are no standalone points systems?


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 27, 2007)

It IS up to RCI to treat their Weeks members honestly, and not rip off Weeks systems inventory for the benefit of outsiders like Points members and non-member renters (which incidentally also benefits themselves when they pocket the rental fees).





AwayWeGo said:


> Timehsare exchanging the way I (increasingly) do it is like Forrest Gump's mama's box of chocolates -- I'm never sure what I'll get.
> 
> That because when I'm trying it week-for-week, not only am I not sure what I'll get, _nobody's_ sure.  (But the crapshoot aspects of the venture seem to be part of the attraction, based on all I've been reading here lately.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Miss Marty (Jan 27, 2007)

*Where is all of the good inventory going?*

*
Its not just RCI*

What about all the timeshare owners that are in "the business"
of picking up the best floating points/weeks & renting them out 

They too are raiding the system.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 28, 2007)

*Consistent values give RCI the rental inventory!*

When a system lacks the flexibility to adjust values for the reality of the ups and downs of supply and demand this rigidity leaves a lot of inventory high and dry.  It can't adjust downward to match real demand in the market so it just sits on the shelf.  And RCI says ''Aha! Excess!'' and throws it into rentals to the general public.  Joe Sixpack gets it for a song instead of a RCI dues-paying t/s maintenance fee-paying members.

It is much better for timesharing that the system adjust and the inventory go to timesharers as an exchange than be rented to the general public for the benefit of the exchange company.

The lack of a 45-day window WITHIN Points (yes, I know they can raid the Weeks 45-day window) is another example.  More ''excess'' inventory to be rented out to Joe Sixpack by RCI for its own profit.

The whole Points system, and particularly the inflexibility of its exchange mechanism, is designed to harvest ''excess'' for RCI's rental program.  And guess what? That means less exchanges for timesharers.

And they seem to be doing it to a lesser degree in Weeks, with an emphasis on ''like for like'' - an arbitrary limit on the functioning of supply and demand, for the purpose of (guess what?) havesting more ''excess'' for RCI rentals.

Too many timesharers have their heads in the sand about RCI real purpose in these manueivers.  R(ental) C(odominiums) I(nternational) is trying to hose the exchange system to gather in more inventory to rent for its own benefit.






timeos2 said:


> Perry - It amazes me that RCI & II, who can't keep a mere web site functioning for more than a few days at a time on a good week, can't answer a phone or answer a question in any kind of reasonable time frame, place proper point values on resort (according to some) or keep track of what they have in inventory to rent/sell/exchange yet they can operate what is apparently one of the great real-time systems ever developed to precisely determine the exact value of any week of timeshare at any given moment.  Or at least  that is what this red herring argument seems to imply.
> 
> You have it exactly right. It's all about consistent values (no need for a minute by minute or even monthly update), informing owners of that value and the owners getting to decide what makes sense as a trade and what doesn't. The is no market in weeks as all the decisions are made in secret. There is no making a choice to combine values from more than one deposit to get a "super" exchange in weeks - the process doesn't allow that. It only allows rare upgrades and frequent down grades but none of it is in the light of day. The opposite argument of flexibility and better valuation because there is no pressure from developers is quaint but simply makes no sense. The opportunity to "play games" is naturally far greater when all values are hidden than when they are openly published. The pressure to correct them if they are wrong is far greater when anyone who picks up the wishbook sees them. Who knows if they are wrong in the secret society method?
> 
> I'm glad there are many choices and that includes the weeks systems. But I sure don't want to play in that world of deception.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 28, 2007)

*The Cow that killed the earth...*

Alleged, alleged, alleged,  every time I listen to the news that’s always in the “Talking Heads” news “Allegedly Joe Six-pack did this dastardly deed”.  We all know that most of what passes for news is just tabloid hype designed to work on our worst fears.

What’s missing from all this RCI hype is the word “Allegedly” – there is no proof that any of this exists or works the way it is being portrayed.

When we give the benefit of the doubt to mass murderers should we not extend that same doubt to the RCI hype that gets bantered about here all the time?

Let’s face it all of this speculation has no educational value – anyone learned anything from all these rumors?  Any decisions based upon these “Alleged” unscrupulous rumors are wrong – you should NOT make decisions based upon the “Alleged facts”.

As of today, RCI has not been found guilty of a single wrong doing – these are all wild rumors and suppositions that can’t be backed up with one piece of evidence that would last 10 seconds in court.

This is just like global warming – the last 1,000 years have had the sun getting hotter and hotter – why, we don’t know.  However, the hype dispensed to prove one reason over the other is comical.  I personally love the one about the farting cows.

Same here, these rumors and reasons why you can’t get that super upgrade anymore are all based upon unproven events – I look at them as comical and make no decisions based upon them.  The simplest explanation is that the glory days of RCI weeks has ended – that seems to be the conclusion that makes the most sense.

Do you really expect a court to fix this - bring back the glory days of RCI Weeks?


----------



## huestous (Jan 28, 2007)

The same old arguements about the Evil Empire have been rehashed for years now.

If you don't like their rules, don't play their game.

Travel, timeshare, rental, vacation opportunities abound.  There is no good reason to participate in a program that is not meeting your needs.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 28, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> You might start with a fair comparison.  You use probably the most demanded week of the year for OLCC, but only a generic week for DS.  A fair comparision would be with a prime school holiday week at DS, and then guess what?  I suspect DS would have a much better supply/demand curve when it is prime vs prime, and possibly even a higher rental.  But then, again, rental involves yet another apples and oranges comparision, dollars vs the long undervalued (although now somewhat less so as the dollar has fallen) SA rand.



Actually, it's not a straw man.  It's actually how I do an assessment of renting vs. buying vs. exchanging.  I only exchange for those locations that I can get cheaper by exchanging vs. renting.  I only exchange when I can get a huge trade up.  And, there are so many still available that I am in a timeshare about once or twice per month on a week for week exchange trade up.

Today, I just traded my weakest blue studio unit for a 2 bedroom Marriott MOC.  There is no one on earth that can even begin to credibly argue that that was anything but a HUGE double or triple or even quadruple trade up.   This is why people should use weeks exchange.... to trade up.

I would say that 99% of those US residents who bought South Africa timeshares did so for the trade up value.  They probably didn't use the exact math that I did to make effective apples to apples comparisons between accommodations choices.  But, they did it to trade up.

According to your arguments, RCI is perfect because they base their model on dynamic supply and demand.  Those words are meaningless and tag lines that don't reflect the reality of what people did in SA.

I'd like to have someone post on this board and say they bought in South Africa because they found that that was the best way to get an equal trade in RCI.  That makes no sense at all.  They bought in SA because they could trade up.  No matter what you call it, that's what they did it for.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 28, 2007)

*Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. . .*

This post reminds me of the famous line from the Wizard of Oz. . .

_Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, the great and powerful Oz (in this case RCI) has spoken!_

There have been so many examples in the Cendant-era RCI saga where the defenders of RCI have raised this anguished mantra of ''we want smoking gun proof or we are going to believe every word RCI is feeding us'', only for the proof to later come out and the RCI defenders were WRONG.

This is really a broken record you are playing, Perry, and one that was being played long before you joined the debate.

I also might remind you that in a court of law, circumstantial evidence is enough to send a person to the gas chamber (or lethal injection table).  If it is enough for that, it certainly should be enough for a timeshare debate!!!

What we do expect a court to fix is to cut out the fraud that is being perpetrated on RCI Weeks members.



PerryM said:


> Alleged, alleged, alleged,  every time I listen to the news that’s always in the “Talking Heads” news “Allegedly Joe Six-pack did this dastardly deed”.  We all know that most of what passes for news is just tabloid hype designed to work on our worst fears.
> 
> What’s missing from all this RCI hype is the word “Allegedly” – there is no proof that any of this exists or works the way it is being portrayed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 28, 2007)

It is a straw man when you chose a very high demand week for one resort but only a generic week for the other.  Do you contend that is a far comparision?

And the reason most people bought South Africa (and on the Points side, bought Australia) was to take advantage of the exchange rate discrepancies, when the rand and the Oz dollar were really in the toilet.  Now that the US dollar is down there, too, and the bowl is swirling, the advantage is no longer so great.

The reality with South Africa in exchanging has to do with the supply of weeks and the demand for them.  You are simply wrong on SA being a trade up in most instances.  RCI's own Availibilty tables publsihed in the European version of the RCI Directory clearly show that.  South Africa timeshare has a significantly better supply/demand curve than Florida, for example.

*Again, what is an equal trade does not have a thing to do with how much you paid to buy a week or in maintenance fee.  It has to do with the amount of weeks in the exchange system (supply) and the number of requests (demand).  It's as simple as that*

The real trades up are over in RCI Points where they are designed in, as opposed to depending on quirks in supply and demand, like in Weeks.  That is probably why so many of those on these boards who seem so fixated with trades up seem to have joined RCI Points.  Its not to avoid trades up, it is to get them.




BocaBum99 said:


> Actually, it's not a straw man.  It's actually how I do an assessment of renting vs. buying vs. exchanging.  I only exchange for those locations that I can get cheaper by exchanging vs. renting.  I only exchange when I can get a huge trade up.  And, there are so many still available that I am in a timeshare about once or twice per month on a week for week exchange trade up.
> 
> Today, I just traded my weakest blue studio unit for a 2 bedroom Marriott MOC.  There is no one on earth that can even begin to credibly argue that that was anything but a HUGE double or triple or even quadruple trade up.   This is why people should use weeks exchange.... to trade up.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Jan 28, 2007)

*Is that a cow I see?*

Carolinian,

I don’t use RCI weeks for any exchanging, I do use RCI Points to convert our MFs from our SA units into airline tickets and actually make a buck or two doing this.  I am not defending RCI, nor are many here, what we are defending is fair play.  I really don’t like RCI to tell the truth.  I love II – the outrageous exchanges I've made make their week system far superior to RCI’s.

RCI does not post here; you know that, only your side of the story is presented.  A side that to me makes no logical sense at all.  Those farting cows make more sense to global warming than your arguments you’ve presented – at least to me.

This one sided presentation might actually cause a neophyte timeshare owner to make a decision that is not based upon any concrete facts or explanations from the other side.  This is my great fear and reason for posting.

Now if RCI responded I would then have something to compare – your version and their version.  Other, nameless, chat room folks making claims have no bearing on this case.  Anyone can claim to be anything here – who really knows the backgrounds of folks here or their agenda.

Unfortunately the same secrecy that makes RCI Weeks work (If you want to call it working) shields them from presenting evidence and the same on your side – you can only provide anecdotal evidence of something that can NEVER be proven!

*This entire argument reminds me of the typical timeshare sales presentation – lots of outrageous claims backed up with no proof, or worse, wrong facts.*

To summarize:
My debate here is to uncover facts – there are none that have been presented.  I’m not sure what your debate is about – there are no verifiable facts presented, nor reproducible events that can shed the light of truth on this matter.  Show me some evidence or reproducible events that I can come to any other conclusion that RCI has maxed out and other exchange companies (RCI Points for instance) and mini-systems (Wyndham – the larges timeshare organization in the world and points oriented) and even owner renting have caused RCI to peak.

*I await the proof *and in the mean time will warn others not to make decisions based upon unproven facts.  Apparently RCI Weeks has peaked and offers much less to owners than just a few years ago.  We can only guess at the answer – just like those cows.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 28, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> It is a straw man when you chose a very high demand week for one resort but only a generic week for the other.  Do you contend that is a far comparision?
> 
> And the reason most people bought South Africa (and on the Points side, bought Australia) was to take advantage of the exchange rate discrepancies, when the rand and the Oz dollar were really in the toilet.  Now that the US dollar is down there, too, and the bowl is swirling, the advantage is no longer so great.
> 
> ...




I didn't use a generic week.  I used a durban sands week in my example.  I could have just as easily used one of Bruce's Christmas Mountain Village Blue weeks that he gets for $48 and books within 45-days from checkin and deposits it with RCI.  That is a REAL exchange.  So, it's real examples, not alleged straw men.  I am willing to bet you $1000 today that we can make that trade today.  I know because I just checked RCI.  You willing to bet that I am bluffing?  I am absolutely speaking the truth.

You and I simply define trade ups differently.  I use a real economic comparison of alternatives model which is really what matters to most (even if they don't know it consciously).  Leveraging the exchange rate imbalances IS an example of buying low to trade up.  You can use the same formula I describe to model it.  All you need to do is add exchange rate risk into the equation.  My explanation does a far better job at explaining the South Africa phenonena than anything else.  People bought in South Africa because they saw a huge opportunity for trade ups.  No matter what you call it.  That's what it is.

You simply state an assertion that whatever RCI does is a perfect dynamic supply and demand match which I have proven it isn't.  Your definition claims that any trade in RCI is an even trade or it wouldn't be offered.  That is simply not consistent with the reality that weeks exchangers experience on a daily basis and develop strategies to exploit.

Let me ask you this.  If all exchanges are by definition even trades within RCI weeks, why do so many people on this message board entertain trade up strategies?  Explain that phenomenon, please.  They are NOT buying in these exotic locations for even trades.  They are doing it so that they can trade up.  What's new is that I now have an economic model that quantifies the trade ups.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 28, 2007)

Carolinian,

If I pay $100 for a commodity and I trade it for something worth $500, that is a trade up.  And, the trade up is worth $400.

The $100 is the cost of the commodity that you acquired.  It doesn't matter how you acquired it.  It just matters that you real costs were $100.

The $500 commodity is priced at that level by the market.  Not, by the cost of the commodity.  It is worth what someone is willing to pay for it.  That's why the rental value is material.  If that week rents at $500, then it doesn't matter if that owner paid $700 or $100 in maintenance fees for that week.  It's only worth $500.

That is why you need to look at the real costs of what you own and the real rental value of what you are trading for.

When the rental market for timeshares is much bigger, this is the way people will decide what to buy, what to rent and how much to pay for many if not most timeshares.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 28, 2007)

*Since when do people ignore price*



Carolinian said:


> *Again, what is an equal trade does not have a thing to do with how much you paid to buy a week or in maintenance fee.  It has to do with the amount of weeks in the exchange system (supply) and the number of requests (demand).  It's as simple as that*



I doubt that you will find many people, even here, that DON'T consider the cost of their time when they look at trades. What type of fool would gladly take a week that cost them $600/year and willingly trade for a week that is worth $450 if rented? Would they pick the Motel 6 over the JW Marriott if both cost them that $600? Of course not. It's not two equal properties. In the case of timeshares most would say heck - I'll rent the time for $450 and get something worth $600 (or more) for my trade. So price/fees do play a major role. Another reason that hidden values are to trick owners not benefit them. It's easier to part with your $600 week if you are under the delusion you will get something equal back. Not so if you already knew that the pool you get to choose from is made up of weeks worth 2/3 or less on the open market.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 28, 2007)

*Burying your head in the sand doesn't help*

The actions in recent years by RCI to devalue their Weeks exchange program impact our resorts, and that will impact our resorts' members (us).  It doesn't matter if you just own to use and don't personally care about exchanging anyway.

In my area, HOA's depend on people who exchange for around 30% of maintenance fees.  If a significant number of these people became fed up and bailed out, it would seriously impact the m/f's paid by everyone else. Wake up and smell the coffee.  Resorts are already seeing the early wave of bailouts from the changes RCI has made in its exchange system.

Look at the big picture.  We don't need to bury our heads in the sand and pretend it is not happening.

What would help most is to be proactive.  Help grow the competition in exchanging.  Ask your resort to dual affiliate with II.  Ask your HOA to educate your members on their ability to use the independents.  The way RCI is headed, resorts do NOT need all of their exchange eggs in RCI's basket.





huestous said:


> The same old arguements about the Evil Empire have been rehashed for years now.
> 
> If you don't like their rules, don't play their game.
> 
> Travel, timeshare, rental, vacation opportunities abound.  There is no good reason to participate in a program that is not meeting your needs.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 28, 2007)

*The broken RCI defense record playing yet again!*

Whether as a self-appointed spokesman/advocate or otherwise, you do seem to play RCI's hand on these boards as well as any, Perry.

As to the RCI employees posting on various boards, I think most on these boards know that Bootleg has been the genuine article.  He has gone into Tuggers individual acccounts, and if he was not what he said he was, he certainly couldn't have done that.  Similarly, Anon at TimeshareTalk was checked out by the owner of that board, who asked some specific questions about his own RCI account that only someone with access to RCI's computers could have answered, and Anon came back with all of the correct answers.  Another poster at Timeshare Talk actually posted a compressed screeen shot from RCI's computer, that Bootleg verified.  Only the most knee-jerk RCI supporter would question the bonafides of these people.  What they have posted shreds all of your defenses of RCI.

If you really wanted to defend fair play, you would be as upset as knowledgable Weeks owners are at the way RCI is hosing us with the rentals and points crossover grids.  In one of your earlier posts you flippantly stated that it was great that RCI could rent out our prime Weeks inventory so you could gets Points Partner airline tickets.  This is support of fair play?????

As to defenses of the ''RCI can do no wrong'' crowd, one of my favorites was the Tugger who contended that it could not possibly be RCI that was putting all of those rental weeks on Sky Auction, that in fact it was one guy who owned A LOT of timeshare weeks.  Of course that defense was shredded when Tuggers started winning those auctions and getting standard RCI confirmations for the rental weeks they had won.

I could go back farther, to the debate on the old TUG boards right after RCI rolled out GPN (the early name of RCI Points), and I pointed out that it was obvious that the opaque language of RCI on what they would do with weeks obtained for Points Partner reservations meant they would rent them to the general public.  I was attacked right and left by RCI partisans on that board saying that this was nonsense.  Guess who was right on that one????

One moment you are agreeing about the relationship of rentals and points partner exchanges, even boasting about it, and the next you are claiming there is no proof.   You can't have it both ways, Perry!  The grids are the screwball numbers in them are there for all to see.

A Tugger discovers RCI is offering 50,000 prime weeks to travel agents to rent out for a commission, and RCI won't answer questions about it.  Because they punt, you would say, ''Oh, too bad, there is no smoking gun''.  Part of what attorneys regularly emplore juries to do is use their common sense.  How about using a little of yours, for a change, Perry!  

When I read the posts of a few Tuggers concerning some of these RCI issues, they remind me of the statuettes of the three monkeys, one with his hands over his eyes, another with his hands over his ears, and a third with his hand over his mouth, and the slogan ''See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil''.

It is one thing to try to bury your own head in the sand.  It is quite another to advocate all timesharers do so while RCI is driving the ownership/exchange model of timesharing into the ditch.




PerryM said:


> Carolinian,
> 
> I don’t use RCI weeks for any exchanging, I do use RCI Points to convert our MFs from our SA units into airline tickets and actually make a buck or two doing this.  I am not defending RCI, nor are many here, what we are defending is fair play.  I really don’t like RCI to tell the truth.  I love II – the outrageous exchanges I've made make their week system far superior to RCI’s.
> 
> ...


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 28, 2007)

*Looks like we have the key*



Carolinian said:


> The actions in recent years by RCI to devalue their Weeks exchange program impact our resorts, and that will impact our's resorts members (us).  It doesn't matter if you just own to use and don't personally care about exchanging anyway.
> 
> In my area, HOA's depend on people who exchange for around 30% of maintenance fees.  If a significant number of these people became fed up and bailed out, it would seriously impact the m/f's paid by everyone else.
> Wake up and smell the coffee.  Resorts are already seeing the early wave of bailouts from the changes RCI has made in its exchange system.
> ...



So combine the numerous posts about how all the good times at these resortrs are "used not traded" and now that "30% of the maintenance fees" come from traders. Add them up and that means that the value of what nearly everyone else thinks is poor time (off season at a seasonal area) is what is being deposited to take much better time in other areas. The very definition of an upgrade as has been stated over and over.  Yet time and time again we hear how the better areas are "over pointed" or "overbuilt" are killing timesharing and are the impetus behind the  push to points.  Hello!  It is the 30% that can't survive on their own without the support of upgrades (read subsidies)  from the better areas that are the problem. Always have been the problem long before points, rentals or anything else that has been blamed for the problems of week for week trades. Bad time means bad trades and the very reason the value has to be hidden. Or maybe thats the new math?


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jan 28, 2007)

*4 Monkeys.*




Carolinian said:


> ''See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil''.


Plus, "Get In On The Evil" -- i.e., _Raiding The Weeks Inventory_ (via _Instant Exchange_, etc.). 

If you can't beat'm, join'm. 
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 28, 2007)

*Another straw man!*

Wait just a minute!  My post was about *purchase price* and *maintenance fee* not market rental value.

Do you think that someone who paid developer price for a deep offseason blue week should have more trading power than a savvy timeshare buyer who gets a December eBay bargain for a summer beach week?  That's what basing trading power on purchase price would mean, and I doubt you would find many Tuggers who would agree with that proposition!

What about maintenance fee?  If trading values were based on that, in your beloved Points system, all weeks of the same size (and often all weeks) at a resort would have the same point value since they had the same m/f.

I would take a Motel 6 directly on the beach over a JW Marriott from which I had to get in my car and drive to the beach *ANY DAY*.  Similarly it would be a no brainer to grab a Motel 6 in central London over a JW Marriott in downtown Detroit.  Location is the big factor in what is the better option.
In fact, I once did something like that.  I had a request in with DAE for Hilton Head and they offered me the Disney resort there, but when I found out where it was located, a long way from the beach, I checked with RCI and took an older standard resort they had availible right across the street from the beach.  The most important amenity is a beach area is the beach itself.




timeos2 said:


> I doubt that you will find many people, even here, that DON'T consider the cost of their time when they look at trades. What type of fool would gladly take a week that cost them $600/year and willingly trade for a week that is worth $450 if rented? Would they pick the Motel 6 over the JW Marriott if both cost them that $600? Of course not. It's not two equal properties. In the case of timeshares most would say heck - I'll rent the time for $450 and get something worth $600 (or more) for my trade. So price/fees do play a major role. Another reason that hidden values are to trick owners not benefit them. It's easier to part with your $600 week if you are under the delusion you will get something equal back. Not so if you already knew that the pool you get to choose from is made up of weeks worth 2/3 or less on the open market.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 28, 2007)

*You use a RENTAL model; I use an EXCHANGE model*

Again, Boca, you use a generic Durban Sands week against a specific prime week at OLCC.  If you were to do a fair comparision, you would use a specific prime week at Durban Sands, like a school holiday week.

Your model may be fine for rentals, but we are talking about *Exchanges*

Looking at the RCI Availibility tables in the European version of their directory (sorry, they didn't put them in the US version) reveals the following about supply vs demand *in the exchange system*:

scale: 4- very good availibility; 3- good availibility; 2- less availibility/highly demanded; 1- limited availibility/very highly demanded

The comparision (each month is given a number):
South Africa- no 4s; four 3s; three 2s; five 1s
Florida - three 4s; four 3s; three 2s; two 1s

For South Africa, two thirds of the year is either ''limited availibility/very highly demanded'' or ''less availibility/highly demanded'' while in Florida, over half of the year is ''very good availibility'' or ''good availibility''.

South Africa clearly has a MUCH better supply/demand curve than Florida, so most trades from South Africa to Florida will be a trade down, not a trade up.

If the bottom dropped out of the UK pound (say Scotland seceded with their North Sea oil, the UKIP won the election for the remainder, and the EU imposed sanctions, for example), you could probably buy Allen House for a song, and pay a small m/f,  but this would not impact its trade value.  In fact it would probably improve it as people flocked to what would suddenly be a cheap destination.  Taking advantage of currency rates has absolutely nothing to do with the value of a timeshare week to the exchange market.



BocaBum99 said:


> I didn't use a generic week.  I used a durban sands week in my example.  I could have just as easily used one of Bruce's Christmas Mountain Village Blue weeks that he gets for $48 and books within 45-days from checkin and deposits it with RCI.  That is a REAL exchange.  So, it's real examples, not alleged straw men.  I am willing to bet you $1000 today that we can make that trade today.  I know because I just checked RCI.  You willing to bet that I am bluffing?  I am absolutely speaking the truth.
> 
> You and I simply define trade ups differently.  I use a real economic comparison of alternatives model which is really what matters to most (even if they don't know it consciously).  Leveraging the exchange rate imbalances IS an example of buying low to trade up.  You can use the same formula I describe to model it.  All you need to do is add exchange rate risk into the equation.  My explanation does a far better job at explaining the South Africa phenonena than anything else.  People bought in South Africa because they saw a huge opportunity for trade ups.  No matter what you call it.  That's what it is.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 28, 2007)

Remember that Bootleg told us where RCI had the big excesses in inventory?
Orlando, Williamsburg, Massanutten, and Branson.  Indeed, he posted that the two resorts with the biggest excesses in the entire RCI system were Gold Crowns in Orlando.

Given the oversupply, many if not most of the weeks in such areas have a supply / demand curve like a blue week.  That is why a blue week from most anywhere will trade in there.  This is not ''better'' time, it is equivalent time.

On the OBX, when HOAs meet in October and November, it is rare that the resorts can come up with vacant units for board members, even when several resorts work together to help each other out. Most board members end up in motels.  And of course that is what you want to call off season.  And it is, in that there are not the huge multiples of people trying to get in over the weeks availible as in the summer.  But from a resort or exchange standpoint, it is solid occupancy.

In Florida, RCI says there are three months with ''Very good availibility''. Now, of course there are areas within Florida like Sanibel/Captiva and the Keys where it is going to be tough to find a week any time of the year, but there are others, like the overbuilt areas where it is not.  Why RCI will on one hand say they have ''very good availiblity'' and on the other hand say these same weeks are ''red'' just reflects the degree to which anything that RCI makes public is influenced by the developers.  The developers there would be thrown into a tizzy if RCI were honest enough to designate some of those months as white or blue, as they should be.  And its not just Orlando.  The same is true of other overbuilt areas, like the ''all red'' (wink, wink!) Canary Islands.




timeos2 said:


> So combine the numerous posts about how all the good times at these resortrs are "used not traded" and now that "30% of the maintenance fees" come from traders. Add them up and that means that the value of what nearly everyone else thinks is poor time (off season at a seasonal area) is what is being deposited to take much better time in other areas. The very definition of an upgrade as has been stated over and over.  Yet time and time again we hear how the better areas are "over pointed" or "overbuilt" are killing timesharing and are the impetus behind the  push to points.  Hello!  It is the 30% that can't survive on their own without the support of upgrades (read subsidies)  from the better areas that are the problem. Always have been the problem long before points, rentals or anything else that has been blamed for the problems of week for week trades. Bad time means bad trades and the very reason the value has to be hidden. Or maybe thats the new math?


----------



## K9HNDLR (Jan 28, 2007)

I think if I were an RCI Executive, I would snipe some great weeks, at the best places, for my family, friends, or anyone I wanted to smooze........


But thats just me.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 28, 2007)

They actually have a formal program to do just that, which as I understand it is part of the class action lawsuit.  Even affiliated resort managers and HOA leaders can participate.

But that really doesn't bother me, as the volume is much smaller than the hemoraging to rentals and points.  The Seasons timeshare chain in Europe had a great special issue of their newsletter a few years ago when they dumped RCI and jumped ship to II, in which they detailed their reasons, firing a withering broadside at RCI over both rentals and points.  I wish it were still online to link to it for newbies.




K9HNDLR said:


> I think if I were an RCI Executive, I would snipe some great weeks, at the best places, for my family, friends, or anyone I wanted to smooze........
> 
> 
> But thats just me.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 28, 2007)

*Hasta lasagna don't get any on ya*

Carolinian,

I simply want some proof to backup your charges against RCI – that’s what I’m asking for - and it's been years now.  Certainly you don’t consider the rumors of alleged RCI employees as proof to convince folks to your argument?

Show me a written memo, a written page from a manual, a page of code from a programmer, a sworn affidavit, anything that can be considered “Evidence” that would stand up in court.  Just about every topic on this chat room is backed up with written documents that can be reviewed – pages of manuals, copies of exchanges, etc.  Our personal experiences can be backed up with other’s who have had similar experiences.

It’s this one topic, of “RCI is evil” that no one can substantiate.  This has been going on for years with no verifiable proof – for what purpose?  It’s one thing to call attention to something and others can verify it but when it comes to the internal workings of RCI and II they are all secret.

Show me the formula for trading power used by RCI and II – it’s a trade secret protected by non-disclosures.  That’s why no RCI employee with access to the real information will ever say anything on this chat room – RCI would spend an unlimited amount of money to track them down and destroy their lives. I don’t think that the folks claiming to be RCI employees have access to any of this information and thus they too are just repeating the rumors that float around.

Repeating baseless charges multiple times doesn’t verify them.  My fear is that innocent timeshare owners might actually believe this stuff and make bad decisions from them.  I believe this is a disservice to the owners who hear these rumors and make a bad decision.

What exactly should the average RCI week owner do?  What evidence can you present to them to make an educated decision – as far as I can see there is none and a disservice to fellow Tug members can result.

I will go along with the idea that RCI Weeks has peaked and appears to be declining – since I don’t use RCI Weeks this does not bother me.  Why this is happening is just a guess.  Others simply need to make a decision as to use RCI Weeks or not – it’s really that simple – like flipping a light switch.

This is just rumor mongering and a disservice to fellow Tug members if no proof is presented.  I believe this topic has gone on for years now with no proof ever presented – at some point this debate is just going to be ignored by the rest of TUG – an outcome that I intend to stick around for.

So let me know when you find that smoking gun – send me a PM and I’ll review the evidence.  Until then this thread is long enough that folks won’t bother to read it anymore so I bid everyone good night until the next time the same topic is once again dredged up for fodder.

I’m out of here – I promise.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 29, 2007)

*RCI's broken record, playing yet again!*

In case you haven't figured out, Perry, TUG is not a court of law.  A statement from someone who has first hand knowledge, especially someone who has been reliable in the past like Bootleg is A LOT more worthy of belief than the bluster of RCI's advocates, self-appointed or otherwise, on these boards.

BTW, when it comes to stonewalling and coverups, I wonder at what point you finally believed there was enough evidence that something wrong had happened at Watergate?  Was it the day Nixon resigned?

Hopefully these issues will get to court.  I would have prefered a state AG consumer protection action, but the class actiion boys got there first.  Both sides are hot and heavy in discovery right now.  If the case settles, we will never see the results (a big incentive for RCI to settle), but if it goes to trial we will.

For those who want to see the original complaint in one of the two class action lawsuits against RCI, it is at
www.thetimesharebeat.com/murrillo-vs-rci.pdf

It is my hope that newbies will not let the bluster of RCI's advocates on this thread bliind them to the very serious problems for timesharing that RCI's new policies over the past few years pose to the future of timesharing.

The key to a fair system is lack of conflict of interest.  The old RCI formula as established by Christel de Haan was fair because it lacked any conflict of interest.  When Cendant took over RCI they started injecting conflict of interest.  The rentals and the favoritism to points were the main avenues of conflict of interest.  All it takes it looking at how the system is organized to see that conflicts of interest exist.

Within the RCI set up, the mini points systems are treated like Weeks resorts.
Why did the major ones jump ship for II after RCI rolled out GPN/RCI Points? 
Could it be that they could see that Weeks members were being screwed and they were in the same boat as Weeks resorts?   Seasons in Europe spelled it out very clearly for all to see in their newsletter.  Is the Seasons management that much more adept at using their common sense than you are, Perry?

It is not hard to use analysis to see where RCI's policies are going.  We have had this ''proof'' argument with RCI advocates many times. I have cited some examples in prior posts, but getting back to the purpose of this thread, from the beginning, I have said that RCI's rentals and preferences for points would degrade the ability to exchange in RCI Weeks.  We are seeing  more and more posts where Tuggers are finding this to be happening.  Some RCI advocates or points advocates for whatever purpose may want to deny this is happening, but I think many Tuggers know from their own experience what is happening to the availibility of exchanges.  And doesn't plain old good common sense tell you that when you take items out of the pool (like for rentals and points members), there will be less in the pool for those entitled to it?  It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. 

Timesharers need to work together to convince RCI to get back on a path that will be best for its future because it is best for timesharing.  It is best for timesharing to have a strong RCI based on the policies that built it and made it great, rather than have RCI self-destruct over the current short-sighted policies.  Consumer action on many fronts can help turn things around, like they did for Delta and US Airways frequent flyers.  The lawsuits are one aspect of that.  But like the airline fights, we must contend with the naysayers who for whatever reason seem to want to run interference for the benefit of the current corporate policies.

Consumers also need to have a plan B.  When the Delta problems hit, I stayed with Delta as long as I could as a loyal frequent flyer elite member.
When I reached my last period of time that I could comp over my elite status to another carrier that had a reasonable requalification scheme, unlike the one then in place at Delta, I had to take the plunge and make a change to NW.

With timesharing, RCI Weeks members need to have a plan B.  It may be II.
It may be independents.  It may be direct exchanges or renting.  It may be giving up timeshare exchanging.   But it is also worth the fight to try to make the RCI execs see the light and get their ship back on an even keel while they can.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 29, 2007)

For better or for worse, timesharing has changed dramatically since the days of Christel DeHaan.

Carolinian prefers the way timesharing used to be.  A week for week exchange model.  Relatively few rental outlets.  Benign exchange company.

Others prefer the newer mini-systems and timeshare rental model.  And, they enjoy the plethora of travel and accommodations offered to them through all the new programs. 

Whichever you personally prefer, beware of the direction timesharing is headed.  If you try to fight the trend of greater timeshare rentals or of point systems tied together with weeks based systems, you will just make yourself sick and bitter and call for lawsuits which will only serve to make lawyers rich. The net result will be a lot of wasted space on a message board and you still without that exchange you coveted.  Worse yet, you will start divesting yourself of your timeshares and move on to something else while others are learning to capitalize on the new game in town.

The week for week exchange model is being assaulted by owners learning how to rent their own weeks in greater numbers, alternate exchange companies cherry picking good weeks out of the larger exchange companies, points systems that allow owners who once got nothing in return for the deposit to get at least something like a Disney ticket at the same time timeshare participation is growing at its highest rate ever.

But, does this signal the decline of timesharing?  Absolutely not.  This is the dawn of a new Golden Age of timesharing that will last for years.  In this new Golden age, if you think about timesharing like I've expressed in this thread, you can have the greatest vacations of your life for next to nothing.  Don't fight the trend.  Embrace it.  Master it.  Figure it out and use all of the resources on this board to have the time of your life.  Anyone in Maui in mid-February?  Meet me in my unit at the Marriott Ocean Club and the first Mai Tai is on me.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 29, 2007)

*Great sumary from Boca*

And I'll add my 3 cents as well.

There is no doubt that the week for week trades that used to be seen are not as frequently available. There are many theories as to why but they are only theories. While I know Bootleg and a few others that seem to have been in RCI employ have helped bolster the conspiracy theories in the past none have been in a position to accurately know how or why things show up as they do in the system. Certainly they also had their theories but no way to confirm them either. Its easy to find "proof" if you only have one side of the equation and then all assumptions from that point on are faulty. 

The reasons that week for week exchanges aren't what they once were:

- many more options for the owners. Mini-systems, RCI Points, rentals, smaller exchange companies, and more
- the Internet. The biggest impact both for the spread of information and the ease or rentals (buying or selling)
-  changes in RCI focus. Not to be discounted. They are pushing things toward points and away from weeks. Those remaining in weeks are finding far more tendency to like for like trades rather than trade ups
- resorts being proactive toward rentals rather than bulk banking with exchange companies 

You'll note that none of those involve conspiracy.  Just business decisions from all sides to maximize the value of what they deal in. Free enterprise at its best. 

What won't change these factors:

- bemoaning the loss of the old ways. We can't turn back the clock
- lawsuits. By the time they had any results - even if they were what the old guard desired - it will be too late to turn things around. They simply serve to enrich the lawyers on both sides and take money out of our pockets in the long run.
- empty threats. We have no direct power over the exchange companies processes or other owners but we do have the ability to withhold the product (inventory). Since the numbers don't reflect any big drops apparently the majority still see a value in the existing process. The only threat that counts is actually taking action with your time.  

What to do:

- Look at your ownership(s) and decide if they fit the new world order. You have the ultimate say on what you own and how it gets used. 
- be open to new ways. Look at other exchange options if you must use week for weeks if RCI or II isn't meeting your needs. Look at the options such as points if that applies. Look at renting vs exchanging if it makes sense. Look at owning what you want to use rather than owning to trade as a plan of ownership. 
- take conspiracy theories for what they are worth. They make for great posts but unless there is something behind them don't base your actions on mere guesses. Use what you know and can quantify, act with your head rather than your heart when you buy, sell, trade your timeshares. 

When it's all over what do anyone of us care if RCI implodes as long as we have timeshare ownerships that work for our needs?  It is a waste of time and effort to try to turn a ship with a spoon and that is about what one owner or even everyone at TUG  represents to RCI. Do what s best for you as they are certainly going to do whats best for them.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Jan 29, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> Anyone in Maui in mid-February?  Meet me in my unit at the Marriott Ocean Club and the first Mai Tai is on me.



How many Marriott weeks per year do you snag in Hawaii???

Do you have your own named room there yet?

I love Mai Tai's....but I can;t make it to Maui...how about golf in Boca soon?


----------



## guitarlars (Jan 29, 2007)

*Why not name all the variables?*

First, as a disclaimer, I belong to both Weeks and Points. I bought a low cost points resort as a way to convert weeks that would otherwise expire, or couldn't be traded favorably, to something that might have value.

My view is that points is a mixed bag. Sometimes I can see good weeks trades, but usually the points trades work best for me. Sometimes I see things in weeks that don't show up in points (so much for the points see everything argument). So I might raid the weeks inventory, but keep in mind that I may be using two weeks worth of points to get what I want in either case.

In that scenario I have given up two good weeks to get one high demand week. Those weeks are now in the points system. There is a ratio issue here though, I took out two weeks (of lower demand) to get one week of higher demand. Depending on where you are on the food chain you might see these as upgrades, as at least one is a gold crown  in pink season (the other is silver), both in California.

Isn't this exactly the point? The intrinsic value of the resort exchanged into was traded for two resorts of lesser quality, Adam Smith's invisible hand at work gave me the value I deserved (clearly this is excluding any RCI manipulation).

On the points side there are two sides to Carolinian's discussion - on the one hand some points resorts point values are averaged up, but on the other hand others get averaged down. I feel that at least one of my resorts is not given a fair value (averaged down) based on the resorts in the area.

Finally, I am always amused by the propensity of posters to believe that all timeshare users are equally committed and aware of the ins and outs of the systems. Tuggers are here because we want to maximize the value of our investment, and if we can game the system all the better. 

The rest of the world is not clear on how this works. Just look at how many timeshares are never banked or used. I know an older couple that bought in Branson at full price, use the unit about every third of fourth year and never bank or attempt to get any value out of their unit. If they would have asked my opinion I would have suggested a) don't buy in Branson as it is overbuilt, b) get an every other year if you're not going to bank, c) do bank your unit if you're not going to use it to at least have some hope of getting value and d) don't buy a timeshare.

The point is, these people are more typical of the real time share community, Tuggers are the odd ducks. I doubt that all of our activities combined make any difference on the availability of trades in either system.

I think the real focus should be on how RCI determines that a unit is not going to trade, and so decides to put it into the rental inventory. I suspect that most of the problems with trades result from this built in conflict of interest. Why can't I put my units in the rental pool if I don't want to trade? The answer is because that would mean that Cendant couldn't make pure profit off of the timeshare community by snatching our weeks for rental.

Long post, but in summary, I doubt points has much if anything to do with the lack of good trades. I suspect that the reason has more to do with the way RCI gets their rental inventory, since there are no controls to ensure that they are not unreasonably taking weeks out of the trade pool.

Lars


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 29, 2007)

Lars, I suspect that some of the reduction in inventory is due to unethical means of acquiring rental inventory out of the exchange bank.  It is probably an incredibly small percentage.

However, I believe that other reasons have a far greater impact overall.  Owners renting their prime weeks instead of depositing via the many new rental outlets available to them.  Mini-systems keeping good inventory for their owners rather than depositing them.  Independent exchange companies cherry picking off good inventory for their owners.  More educated exchanger base due to sites like TUG.  Online access which helps owners see more of what is available than they once could envision for themselves.  Owners taking deposits that would have normally expired with nothing and now converting them to theme park tickets or airline tickets (even if a bad trade it's better than nothing).  Fewer developer deposits since they can atrract tour guests with their own rental programs.

All of these new methods of dealing with an owners timeshare interval were created because the RCI system didn't meet owners needs.  If RCI were indeed perfect at the time of Christel DeHaan, then there would have been NO NEED for these other methods to be created.   That DeHaan model would have been inpenetrable.  The problem is that it was flawed.  And, those flaws have been exposed and it is starting to decay in favor of superior exchange models.  

Progress is inevitable and this train has already left the station.  Time to get on it or get left behind.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 29, 2007)

First, there are two types of rentals each with a very different impact on timesharing.

Rentals by owners through various agencies have been around since almost the days timesharing began.  Our local storefront t/s rental/resale agency on the OBX has been there that long, and I am aware of others.  That handle many times the volume of timeshare rentals on the OBX of the internet t/s boards combined.  In the scheme of things, the rental volume from the internet is not that huge, and just a drop in the bucket.  These rentals are benign.

The other type of rentals, which Boca tries to blend in, are quite different and have a very negative impact.  These are the exchange company rentals from their exchange deposits.  These are the ones that are the basis of the lawsuits.  By flooding the market, they drive down the rental return of the first type of rentals.  At one end of the market, they make it more financially attractive for members to rent from the exchange company than own their weeks and exchange through the exchange company.  This promotes bailouts that can destabilize resorts.  At all levels they take away from the pool availible for exchangers, and particularly at the top end mean that there is much less out there to exchange for.  This again promotes people getting out of the exchange system, although those weeks would more likely be sold as opposed to dumped.

What is comes down to, with credit to Street Talk, is ''who is going to buy the cow when RCI is providing the milk for pennies?''

The Weeks model is NOT be assaulted by _owners_ wanting to change so much as it is being assaulted by an exchange company trying to ram changes down everyone's throats.  In the early Cendant days, they even boasted about using their power to their resort affiliates.  I posted on the old TUG board letters to resorts from RCI execs about ''using RCI's power as a market leader to take timeshare to the mass market'' (obviously another term for rentals to the general public) and how they were going to ''transform to RCI's new business model by unleashing the power of GPN (the old name of RCI Points)''.  RCI is trying to rig the system to force change.  

The solutions?  A consumer protection lawsuit by a state AG would be best, but perhaps the class action can at least bring the ripoff of RCI Weeks to a screaching halt.   The best thing individuals can do is promote diversification of exchanging within our own resorts, by encouraging dual affiliation with II and educating members about using the independents.  IMHO dual affilation is a better strategy than that of Seasons in dumping RCI when they moved to II.  A choice of weeks-based exchange systems is the best bet, as it encourages competition for members' business.

In the big picture, RCI is sowing seeds of financial distress for resorts as they push policies that promote bailouts of members.  Resorts need to emphasize non-exchange buyers for HOA inventory, and educate members on use of independents.  Well run resorts that see this steamroller coming, in most cases can adapt, but I fear there are too many resorts that won't catch on until it is very late in the game, perhaps too late.

As to a members own exchanging, study the independents, and join the ones that can take you where you want to go.

I was in the same boat with my elite level frequent flyer program when Delta screwed up its elite ff program (Sky Miles Medallion).  I joined the fight with the Save Sky Miles team from Flyer Talk, wore my ''parachute man'' button on DL flights and passed out the Save Sky Miles boarding cards to fellow passengers (many of whom had no idea what Delta was doing to them and furious when they found out).  I stayed in as long as I could make Delta work for my travel needs, but at the end of the year, I needed to move to a program with reasonable requalification rules, and comped by elite status over to Northwest, whom I have used since.  I did still take a Delta flight from time to time, as I could put DL miles on NW, so I still did help out with Save Sky Miles even after switching to NW.  Fortunately, enough Delta customers who were loyal to the airline even though upset with management's  policies kept up the fight and after about two years, they won. They raised money to advertise in US Today and rent billboards near airports and near the Delta shareholders meeting.   Delta rolled back all of the anti-customer changes.  The Save Sky Miles website is still up at www.saveskymiles.com

My attitude toward RCI is much like that of Save Sky Miles toward Delta.  The goal should be promoting reform to restore the greatness the company used to have.  As long as they have the massive conflict of interest of taking inventory out of spacebank deposits to rent to the general public, they can never restore that greatness.  As long as they promote one of their systems mooching off of the other, they can never restore that greatness.

An exchange company doesn't create its own product with its own capital.  It depends on trusting members to deposit its product, a timeshare week, into the system.  RCI violates that trust when it turns around and cheats that Weeks member by allowing Points members to mooch his deposit, and when it rents that deposit out to Joe Sixpack.

Many posters have tunnel vision on these subjects, looking only at their own exchange situation.  We had better look at the big picture, because RCI's policies that hurt resorts will ultimately hurt the owners of those resorts (us). 






BocaBum99 said:


> For better or for worse, timesharing has changed dramatically since the days of Christel DeHaan.
> 
> Carolinian prefers the way timesharing used to be.  A week for week exchange model.  Relatively few rental outlets.  Benign exchange company.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 29, 2007)

Obviously, you did not follow Bootleg's or Anon's posts.  Using the RCI computer, they COULD track down where the rental inventory came from, right back to the deposit.  What they found was a lot of prime weeks, that had nothing to do with Points of Deposit, cruises, Points Partners, or anything like that, just straight Weeks deposits, being immediately shifted to RCI's rental pool right after deposit.

Bootleg generally promoted his company, but he had a great loyalty to the consumer.  At first he posted that inventory was not being taken to rentals, but when a Tugger quoted that in contrasting that info with what Anon was posting at Timeshare Forums, Bootleg emailed that Tugger and told him that he had since seen things that changed his mind from his earlier post.  It took a while for Bootleg to actually share what he had found online.  He was certianly not out to get RCI, just concerned for the consumer.

There are a number of RCI posters whose posts can be easily found at www.timesharetalk.co.uk under the RCI board.  Its too bad that TUG does not have an archive of Bootleg's posts, not just on this subject but on all he shared with us.

Again-
1) mini-systems are just that - _mini_ They are a drop in the bucket
2) Rental volume by owners hasn't changed that much.  Where rentals have changed is the vast quantity of exchange company rentals from the spacebank, with RCI way in the lead, but II more quietly also in the game.
3) developers still bulkbank.  HOA's frequently don't either rent or spacebank.
4) the internet rental sites have a tiny fraction of owner rental business.  They have added a little to the market, but proportionately not much

It is the 1000 pound gorrilla, RCI, that is manipulating these changes.  No they are not conspiring with anyone to do that (which is a silly assertion).  They are doing it to line their own pockets at the expense of members and affiliated resorts.  What you have is the ''free enterprise'' of the robber barron period, or more recently the Savings and Loan scandal era (both involve misuse of members deposits).

RCI's defenders often use this ''conspiracy theory'' as a straw man, something they set up just to knock down.  The only thing that could even be remotely construed as a ''conspiracy'' is the politicking of RCI by developers for points numbers.  I know this goes on because I had someone rather high up at Barrier Island Station tell me that not only were they doing that but other developers were, too.  If fact he spoke of a group of developers all pushing RCI for higher numbers if they were going to join Points.





timeos2 said:


> And I'll add my 3 cents as well.
> 
> There is no doubt that the week for week trades that used to be seen are not as frequently available. There are many theories as to why but they are only theories. While I know Bootleg and a few others that seem to have been in RCI employ have helped bolster the conspiracy theories in the past none have been in a position to accurately know how or why things show up as they do in the system. Certainly they also had their theories but no way to confirm them either. Its easy to find "proof" if you only have one side of the equation and then all assumptions from that point on are faulty.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 29, 2007)

guitarlars said:


> .
> 
> Finally, I am always amused by the propensity of posters to believe that all timeshare users are equally committed and aware of the ins and outs of the systems. Tuggers are here because we want to maximize the value of our investment, and if we can game the system all the better.
> 
> ...




I quite agree.  From what I hear from resort managers and timeshare resale people in our area, these average timeshare people don't get the ends and outs of what is wrong but they are beginning to wake up that something is rotten in the state of RCI, as they can see it in their trades.  When this sleeping giant fully wakes up, then we will see the true results of RCI's shananigans, and it will be the resorts that probably reep some of the first negatives.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 29, 2007)

reddiablosv said:


> Another approach would be to at least reform the points grids by breaking locations into many more groups and seasons into many more groups.  They already do both in Europe for the girds.  There is no reason they could not take this minimal step here.  But of course, RCI can profiteer off of the system the way it is set up now.



Carolinian, while I generally agree with you on abuses of RCI, I feel it is necessary to point out that some of the best cross over bargins that RCI is offering at present can be found in Europe.  Yes they do break up their weeks locations into many more groups and locations, but, at present, compared to my PFD Paniolo Greens Week, some European weeks are very undervalued!! I receive 80,500 pts. for my Hawaii week that will exchange for several European weeks.  My MF is $590.  With my one PFD depoist this year I have received an exchange for the Royal Regency in Paris, the Domina Inn Palumbalza in Sardinia, and the Porto Rio Hotel in Greece.   I don't think the the half measure of applying more specific point values seasons and locations would accomplish any benefit.  For true reform either you need to create a firewall or you create bilateral crossover.  Let the weeks owners have access to the points inventory.  One way cross over is just a vehicle for exploitation.  IMHO Ben[/QUOTE]

I agree that the firewall is the best guarantee or possibly a bilateral crossover.  But the bilateral crossover itself would need a fair grid.

More detailed breakdowns of groups of weeks, both seasonally and geographically would help, but only if the numbers in the new grid did not shortchange Weeks as they so often do presently for the better inventory.

Points cheats its own members by overaveraging (a mid-August week 33 having the same point value at the beach as a late October week 43 at the same resort, for example is absolute nonsense), so I doubt they would spend the time on a fair grid for Weeks crossovers.

Weeks doesn't need Points.  We are better off without them.


----------



## guitarlars (Jan 29, 2007)

*If you can't beat'em*

Carolinian:

I generally agree with you, but here I am having bought a low cost points resort as a hedge.

I already had 5 units, so adding another was the last thing I needed to do (can't take that much vacation, unfortunately), however, since RCI still dominates the trade world, and they seemed to be pushing points, and there was some indication that points were getting the trades I couldn't get in weeks, I took the plunge.

I think it would be great if RCI firewalled off the two systems, but suspect that this is no more going to happen than they are going to stop taking the best trades and renting them out. So here I sit, playing the system as best I can in the hopes of eking out a few more years of decent trades.

RCI is clearly killing the goose that lays their golden eggs, but the nature of a company is to maximize their investors returns, and the timeshare owners aren't the investors. 

RCI doesn't see satisfying us as priority number one, at least as long as they can keep us happy enough to not leave all at once. I think more likely we're viewed as number two.

Lars


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 31, 2007)

*What's wrong with this picture?*

In this thread we have had a few Points members/advocates try to tell Weeks members that they should not do anything in opposition to RCI's rigging the system to give Points members the ability to loot our system or in opposition to the rental to the public programs. They might as well say ''Don't fight it, just lie back and enjoy it.''

Some of these same Points members have also even boasted about looting our inventory from the Weeks system.

Why should Weeks members give any credence to such self-serving comments?  Sure there are some Points members who like the ability to take our inventory, and they don't want any of us pesky Weeks peons to rock the boat, as that might impair their ability to continue to do so.

I do also appreciate however the two or three Points members whose posts recognise the problems RCI has created and clearly are sympathetic to the plight of Weeks members.  While their posts are not as numerous as the other group of Points members, these people are looking at these issues based on what is best for timesharing as a whole rather than a more narrow outlook.

When people take a stand, change can be achieved.

Consumer activism forced Delta and USAirways to rescind negative changes to their frequent flyer programs.  Government regulatory involvement put a stop to the misuse of deposits by the Savings and Loan industry.  Similar things can be achieved by similar means in the timeshare exchange industry.


----------

