# Just Got The Royal Screw From Rci



## gnipgnop

One week ago I deposited my Waterside by Spinnaker in Hilton Head, SC, 3 BR-3BA, Week 12 (spring break) into RCI.  I received 26 TPU's for this deposit.  Today I went looking on line and saw my week, Waterside by Spinnaker in Hilton Head, SC, 3BR-3BA, Week 12 (spring break) available to members for 47 TPU's.  I couldn't believe it!  I called and was told by a Guide, Connie, that there was nothing that could be done to change TPU's because they were set according to supply and demand blah, blah blah.  
then in the next breath she tells me that the demand is higher than the supply in HHI at that time of year.  WHAT!!   

So I asked, keeping my cool, to speak to a Supervisor.  James (the supervisor) came on the line and told me basicly the same thing.  I told him I felt this was so unfair, giving me 26 TPU's and RCI asking 47.  That's a 21 TPU difference!  I paid $$$ for the week, pay maintenance fees yearly, paid for membership into RCI since 1994,....isn't there something you can do for a loyal member??  He said distinctly "NO".  So I told him that II was now accepting Spinnaker Resorts into their membership and maybe next year I will give the week to them.  He told me and I quote:  "if you feel that is something you want to do then do it."  He also told me that people are leaving II and coming back to RCI because II has too many problems.  I think he's full of crap.   How can you treat customers like this??   He said there was no way they will change the TPU's  once they are in your account.  I asked him why couldn't the tech. dept. make the change if the order came from a supervisor.  Got no where.  I am so pissed at RCI right now I could "spit".  Sorry to go on like this but I had to get it off my chest.


----------



## ronparise

Were you promised more than 26 tpu when you made your deposit? if not I dont see your problem. You were offered a price that you thought was fair, and you accepted it. 

Now your job is to make the most of your 26 tpu...I bet you could get 2 or three weeks for it


----------



## LisaH

If your week has not been taken, ask politely to withdraw your week. You can always deposit at a later date.


----------



## Ridewithme38

Do you think 7-11 pays the same for a slurpee as they sell it to you for? How about a Pizza place for the ingredients in their pizza? Think McDonalds pays the same for their burgers as they sell them?  Big Box stores like BJ's and Costco also have membership fees, but they still sell their products for more then they buy them for

Same with RCI, they paid you 26 TPU's for your week, it wouldn't make sense for them to sell it for 26 TPU's, no other company does that, why do you think they would?


----------



## bobby

I disagree that RCI should ask more points than they give. RCI is earning their $$$ through membership fees and exchange fees. If the week is only worth 26 trade points for the depositor, it should be worth the same for a request unless devalued for sitting in inventory too long.


----------



## STEVIE

I agree RCI is a company like many others trying to make money, they need to in order to stay in business. But I have to agree there is too much of a disparity between the TPU's given for the deposit and the number of points required to obtain the week. I also would be upset. Sue


----------



## gnipgnop

I never thought 26 was fair when I made this deposit..... but took it anyway not knowing any better.  Then for RCI to turn around and put the screws to me and offer it to other members (like most of you) for 47 TPU's.  THAT'S CRAZY!!  
Rider:  Of course RCI has to make a profit on their exchanges....as McDonalds, Pizza Places and others you mentioned and I have no problem with that but look at the difference in the TPU's.  21 .... How would your feel??   I know, I know be happy with what I got and make the most of it..........but gee.........this really hurts.  I feel so cheated.


----------



## ronparise

susgar said:


> I agree RCI is a company like many others trying to make money, they need to in order to stay in business. But I have to agree there is too much of a disparity between the TPU's given for the deposit and the number of points required to obtain the week. I also would be upset. Sue



I may look at this different than most others, but when I deposit a week into RCI because I either dont want it or cant use it myself...That I get anything back seems pretty good to me

And wouldnt rci make more on the deal if they let someone else have it for( in the ops example) 23 tpu...That way they would get two exchange fees out of that guy instead of one...No I dont think RCI is doing this just to make more money...I really do believe they do it to level out supply and demand


----------



## ronparise

gnipgnop said:


> I never thought 26 was fair when I made this deposit..... but took it anyway not knowing any better.  Then for RCI to turn around and put the screws to me and offer it to other members (like most of you) for 47 TPU's.  THAT'S CRAZY!!
> Rider:  Of course RCI has to make a profit on their exchanges....as McDonalds, Pizza Places and others you mentioned and I have no problem with that but look at the difference in the TPU's.  21 .... How would your feel??   I know, I know be happy with what I got and make the most of it..........but gee.........this really hurts.  I feel so cheated.



Perhaps the guy that got cheated was the one that paid 47 tpu for the week, not you


----------



## jerseygirl

bobby said:


> I disagree that RCI should ask more points than they give. RCI is earning their $$$ through membership fees and exchange fees. If the week is only worth 26 trade points for the depositor, it should be worth the same for a request unless devalued for sitting in inventory too long.




Well said Bobby.  It seems as if others have forgotten that RCI is an exchange company - they pay $0 for their product.  

This is tantamount to the NYSE having a bid of 26 and an ask of 47 on XYZ.


----------



## Karen G

ronparise said:


> And wouldnt rci make more on the deal if they let someone else have it for( in the ops example) 23 tpu...That way they would get two exchange fees out of that guy instead of one.


 That was my thought. RCI makes their money on exchange fees and renting out members' deposits to the general public or other members.  Assigning TPU values to deposited weeks doesn't seem like it makes any money for RCI.

It does seem to me that any given week has a TPU value, and it should be the same value whether someone is depositing it or exchanging for it. The OP wouldn't even be able to trade back into her own week with the TPU she was given for it.


----------



## eal

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


----------



## Talent312

Its more like selling something at a garage sale for peanuts.
_You're happy just to have the item out of your house._

Then seeing _your_ item auctioned on eBay for an absurd sum.
and thinking, "Heck, I could'a made out like a bandit."

If it's really worth that much, rent it yourself.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

Karen G said:


> That was my thought. RCI makes their money on exchange fees and renting out members' deposits to the general public or other members.



I think that is a common misperception about RCI. Like most companies RCI generates revenue from a variety of sources, and all of those are added together and netted against expenses to yield profit.

Take away one revenue source, and the company will try to make up the missing revenue somewhere else to maintain profitability.


----------



## Karen G

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I think that is a common misperception about RCI. Like most companies RCI generates revenue from a variety of sources, and all of those are added together and netted against expenses to yield profit.
> 
> Take away one revenue source, and the company will try to make up the missing revenue somewhere else to maintain profitability.


Can anyone explain how RCI gets revenue from giving the OP 26 TPU's for her week and requiring someone else to use 47 TPU's for the same week?


----------



## amycurl

> Costco also have membership fees, but they still sell their products for more then they buy them for



While this is true, the margin that Costco makes on product is very minimal, usual no more than 10-20% (so significantly less than this RCI skim.) Costco makes all of their profit on Membership Fees. 

Actually, it sounds like a lot of people would be happier if RCI's business model was more like Costco's.


----------



## tschwa2

Karen G said:


> Can anyone explain how RCI gets revenue from giving the OP 26 TPU's for her week and requiring someone else to use 47 TPU's for the same week?



My take: RCI makes deals with developers like Vacation Villages (also associated with Massanutten) to give owners higher than needed to trade back in and in return the developers give them oodles of unsold inventory which RCI can rent out or get extra exchange fees (for example my Massanutten Christmas week gets 23 for each 2 bedroom but I could trade back in for 14 tpu's for each half).  They need to somewhat balance out so they screw the independents and developers that won't play along.  



> So I told him that II was now accepting Spinnaker Resorts into their membership and maybe next year I will give the week to them. He told me and I quote: "if you feel that is something you want to do then do it." He also told me that people are leaving II and coming back to RCI because II has too many problems. I think he's full of crap.



The problem with this is that it is my understanding that Waterside only trades into II if you have the Spinnaker Flexible Ownership which you would have to pay pay $thousands for and basically you lose a lot of your deeded rights.  So II is not an option.  But SFX is and if you like the kind of inventory they have it might work for you.

RCI doesn't play nice but they still have the most inventory and until someone can top them we have to play by their rules or go somewhere else.


----------



## JulieAB

I sympathize with you!  RCI is giving me 5 TPU less this year than they are charging for the same week.  It's NOT supply/demand because I watch my week constantly!  And it's not like Christmas at Disneyland ever really changes anyway!  I think the main reason it rubs me this year is last year they gave me 2 TPU's MORE than they charged for the same week, so I guess I was "spoiled."


----------



## gnipgnop

Thanks everyone ~ there's a lot of great support here.  I wish I could get my week back but I'm not sure how to go about doing it at this point.  I certainly agree that what TPU's are assigned to deposits should be the same amount that are needed for an exchanged.   Fair is fair!


----------



## LisaH

jerseygirl said:


> Well said Bobby.  It seems as if others have forgotten that RCI is an exchange company - they pay $0 for their product.
> 
> *This is tantamount to the NYSE having a bid of 26 and an ask of 47 on XYZ.*



Totally agree!


----------



## DrBopp

Karen G said:


> Can anyone explain how RCI gets revenue from giving the OP 26 TPU's for her week and requiring someone else to use 47 TPU's for the same week?



One way would be to charge a member an extra $100 to combine two or more deposits together to be able to exchange for that unit. Others come to mind.

Gordon


----------



## Beefnot

Gnipgnop, you know how you deposited TODAY and got to combine TPUs for FREE (your other post)?  Well, maybe there were strings attached that are only now becoming clear.  Perhaps RCI partially subsidized their "generous" offer by hacksawing the TPUs of your deposit?


----------



## dougp26364

Unless more owners keep their weeks and refuse to give them to RCI, this will continue. Owners have to realize they control their weeks. If you don't feel you're getting the value from your week that you deserve, then consider the other options. 

This is one of the reason I've advocated buy where your happy to go or, buy into a system that allows internal exchanges to the places you want to go. I.I. has problems but, I haven't had the issues with I.I. I've encountered with RCI. Until RCI treats owners with the knownledge that owners OWN the weeks and they only provide a service, I won't use them. Once they come to their senses and realize they don't own the weeks they rent, maybe I'll consider them again.


----------



## MichaelColey

I would likely be upset if I was in the same situation, but I have a hard time being too sypathetic with someone who would accept 26 TPU for something they think is worth more (or someone who would use 47 TPU for something they think is worth less).  Especially with everything transparent on RCI now.

Only deposit and exchange when it's beneficial to you.


----------



## DaveNV

amycurl said:


> While this is true, the margin that Costco makes on product is very minimal, usual no more than 10-20% (so significantly less than this RCI skim.) Costco makes all of their profit on Membership Fees.
> 
> Actually, it sounds like a lot of people would be happier if RCI's business model was more like Costco's.




Actually, this isn't quite correct.  (My spouse is a career employee at Costco.)  Corporate profits at Costco comes from the sales margin, which can be exceptionally low, as you pointed out.  The membership fees cover employee wages and warehouse overhead.  So the analogy doesn't really fit into the larger RCI discussion in this thread.

My response to what RCI is doing with deposits goes further than objecting to TPU number differences between the deposit and the available exchange.  I seriously object to RCI renting out deposited weeks without making them available for exchanges first.  The filters in place that hide prime deposited weeks smacks of usury and fraud.  To my way of thinking, I should be allowed to take ANY week on deposit, if I have the TPUs on file.  It totally rankles me that I can't exchange into a prime location in a prime week, yet I see many, many, MANY desirable weeks available to rent.

My response to that is simple:  I vacation where I own as often as I can, and I'm working toward using the alternate exchange companies for excess weeks I may have.  My ultimate goal is to stop using RCI altogether.  If everyone who dislikes what RCI does would vote with their feet, they'd be hard pressed to take advantage of their members like they do.

Dave


----------



## dougp26364

Wow! I see a lot of rationalizing this from people who haven't had it happen to them.

I've been exchanging for 14 years now and I've always expected like for like exchanges. Not give an exchange company prime real estate and get a dog exchange in return. 

Really? With the membership fee and exchange fee and any other fee you can imagine, getting shafted on trade value is the cost of doing business? Now wonder RCI has so many cream of the crop rentals available and offers little or nothing for exchange. Their members have beencome accustomed to getting shafted and accept it as the cost of doing business. 

Sure it's transparent but it's the reason we left RCI. No equal exchange, pay membership dues AND pay a higher-than-other exchange comapanies exchange fee. 

So this is the expectation for RCI members. Get shafted on membership fee, get shafted on exchange fee AND get shafted on trade value. All I can say is owners have been brainwashed by getting shafted for so long that it's now become accepted practice.

IMHO, this is anything but acceptable practice. If I'm not getting like for like in exchange, I'm not giving up my week. If more owners would do that, then the greed that is RCI might get tamed.


----------



## Ridewithme38

BMWguynw said:


> Actually, this isn't quite correct.  (My spouse is a career employee at Costco.)  Corporate profits at Costco comes from the sales margin, which can be exceptionally low, as you pointed out.  The membership fees cover employee wages and warehouse overhead.  So the analogy doesn't really fit into the larger RCI discussion in this thread.



It does if you break down the fees by what they are used for...Membership fees are to maintain the site and the phone lines, Exchange fees are to pay for the costs of the employees that contact the resorts and explain who will be staying where...IMO, what i would use the 'sales margins' for is to give a large enough spread to allow weeks, instead of going to exchanges, to extra holidays and last minute rentals


----------



## gnipgnop

MichaelColey said:


> I would likely be upset if I was in the same situation, but I have a hard time being too sypathetic with someone who would accept 26 TPU for something they think is worth more (or someone who would use 47 TPU for something they think is worth less).  Especially with everything transparent on RCI now.
> 
> Only deposit and exchange when it's beneficial to you.




But Michael.........If you know you can not use your week a particular year and want to deposit it so that your can look for an exchange during another time of year AND knowing that depositing early always helps......well, that is why I did it.  Plus who am I to THINK it's worth more?  Sure I bet we all think WOW, our weeks should be worth much more than this.. but hey, RCI (*the Big Guy) say no, your only worth 26.  Then they turn around and place it for exchange to you for 47 tpu's I can just hear them (RCI) saying (IMO) "ha, ha, GOT YA"!  And no, I'm definitely not looking for sympathy I'm merely trying to let others know so they can BEWARE!!


----------



## DrBopp

dougp26364 said:


> Wow! I see a lot of rationalizing this from people who haven't had it happen to them.
> 
> I've been exchanging for 14 years now and I've always expected like for like exchanges. Not give an exchange company prime real estate and get a dog exchange in return.
> 
> Really? With the membership fee and exchange fee and any other fee you can imagine, getting shafted on trade value is the cost of doing business? Now wonder RCI has so many cream of the crop rentals available and offers little or nothing for exchange. Their members have beencome accustomed to getting shafted and accept it as the cost of doing business.
> 
> Sure it's transparent but it's the reason we left RCI. No equal exchange, pay membership dues AND pay a higher-than-other exchange comapanies exchange fee.
> 
> So this is the expectation for RCI members. Get shafted on membership fee, get shafted on exchange fee AND get shafted on trade value. All I can say is owners have been brainwashed by getting shafted for so long that it's now become accepted practice.
> 
> IMHO, this is anything but acceptable practice. If I'm not getting like for like in exchange, I'm not giving up my week. If more owners would do that, then the greed that is RCI might get tamed.



RCI has so much power because timeshare owners gave it to them. In 2010, all I could read about was getting great trades for 28K Wyndham Points or people buying timeshares to trade. I never like to trade unless I am  forced to do it or have no other recourse. I would rather give my week away or sometimes even let it lapse. I spend money on MF and don't enjoy having to pay an extra fee, but sometimes it is worth it.
 Now RCI bypasses owners and go directly to the resorts, so owners do not have the clout that they once did. So you get crap, because you can't hurt them as much as before, but you can still make a difference. The best way is to use your own  timeshare as much as possible.As supply lessens, it will force RCI to offer more to obtain good inventory. It just may make a difference.

Gordon


----------



## dougp26364

DrBopp said:


> RCI has so much power because timeshare owners gave it to them. In 2010, all I could read about was getting great trades for 28K Wyndham Points or people buying timeshares to trade. I never like to trade unless I am  forced to do it or have no other recourse. I would rather give my week away or sometimes even let it lapse. I spend money on MF and don't enjoy having to pay an extra fee, but sometimes it is worth it.
> Now RCI bypasses owners and go directly to the resorts, so owners do not have the clout that they once did. So you get crap, because you can't hurt them as much as before, but you can still make a difference. The best way is to use your own  timeshare as much as possible.As supply lessens, it will force RCI to offer more to obtain good inventory. It just may make a difference.
> 
> Gordon



That's exactly what we've been doing, using our timeshares. I suspect that if enough owners witheld their weeks and if inventory, exchange fee's and even membership fee's dried up, RCI would have to make changes. They'd have no rental inventory, no fee's coming in and their business model would be severly restrained. Alas, RCI members have become accustomed to rationalizing getting the royal screw. 

Even during the heyday of buy a cheap South African week and trade into the big names of timesharing, I've advocated own where you'd be happy going if all else fails. Now, I'm a strong advocate of owning in an internal system that provides you with the value and locations you desire. To that end I'm happy being in the Hilton, Marriott and Diamond Resorts International systems.


----------



## ronparise

dougp26364 said:


> Wow! I see a lot of rationalizing this from people who haven't had it happen to them.



Perhaps the only ones here that can be rational are the ones that dont use rci. If you use it your opinion will be colored by your experience, good or bad

The whole idea of expecting like for like doesnt make sense to me...If you wanted something "like" what you were depositing, why didnt you keep and use what you own. The fact is that you want something different...either a different time, or a different place, or a different size.

What RCI tries to get for your deposit and what they might get for your deposit is of no concern to you now...Your concern should be what can you do with your 26 tpu....I just went to the RCI website...and you do have a lot of choices....For example you could do 3 weeks in a row in a 2 bedroom at Vacation Village at Parkway in December  Its not like for like...its a three for one in your favor...

I think your vc said it right..RCI has to balance supply and demand but that doesnt mean looking at each resort as its own special case..they have to look at their entire inventory...if they have lots of Vacation Village at Parkway inventory and only a few of what you deposited, they have to price things to encourage folks to go to Vacation Village at Parkway


----------



## e.bram

gnipgnop:
Switch to II(like I did) and you can request first and see what you can get before giving your unit.


----------



## elaine

Waterside weeks owners cannot get II access--only if they bought BlueWater or Spinnaker flex-ownership. and, I think for flex, they pick your weekto deposit. 
I got 38 TPUs for my 3BR 4th of July week at Waterside. I knew they were requiring more TPUs to trade back in. As for II, I had another 5* summer beach week in II and never really saw anything I wanted (we can only travel in prime seasons). RCI really does have more breadth and depth, IMHO.
I don't want to risk SFX, with an unknown trade ability--we are not interested in MX and can only travel in high seasson. 
So, I gave it to RCI at the 9 months mark. I have been on both ends of the game--I got 2 weeks HGVC in HAwaii for 37 TPUs total when HGVC did the low-ball bulk last year. Plus, I can combine with leftovers now. And, being able to get DVC is still a huge trump card for RCI for our family.
On the flip side, my parent's have one of the developer overweighted TS--58 TPUs for an Orlando week--go figure! 
So, for us, RCI is stil a mixed bag, but we still keep coming back for more--LOL! Elaine


----------



## MichaelColey

Whether it was worth 26 or 47 or somewhere in between is yet to be seen (unless the week is already gone).

If they keep it listed at 47 and it doesn't move, or if they have to drop the TPU on it, it's worth less.

If they only offer 26 next year and nobody deposits that week, it's worth more.

As long as people will give their week for 26 TPU and others will give up 47 TPU for it, RCI will continue to offer 26 and ask 47.


----------



## Beefnot

elaine said:


> Waterside weeks owners cannot get II access--only if they bought BlueWater or Spinnaker flex-ownership. and, I think for flex, they pick your weekto deposit.
> I got 38 TPUs for my 3BR 4th of July week at Waterside. I knew they were requiring more TPUs to trade back in. As for II, I had another 5* summer beach week in II and never really saw anything I wanted (we can only travel in prime seasons). RCI really does have more breadth and depth, IMHO.
> I don't want to risk SFX, with an unknown trade ability--we are not interested in MX and can only travel in high seasson.
> So, I gave it to RCI at the 9 months mark. I have been on both ends of the game--I got 2 weeks HGVC in HAwaii for 37 TPUs total when HGVC did the low-ball bulk last year. Plus, I can combine with leftovers now. And, being able to get DVC is still a huge trump card for RCI for our family.
> On the flip side, my parent's have one of the developer overweighted TS--58 TPUs for an Orlando week--go figure!
> So, for us, RCI is stil a mixed bag, but we still keep coming back for more--LOL! Elaine



With II, you'll likely get what you want with an ongoing request if you have a high quality, high demand property. With SFX, so I'm told, you will have access to some primo stuff also. Seeing as I have three TS weeks, I am about to take a flyer on SFX.  As for RCI, I can't see that I will ever use them unless I want Disney.  Would only be II, SFX, or Platinum for me. Starve the beast and it will succumb.


----------



## dougp26364

ronparise said:


> Perhaps the only ones here that can be rational are the ones that dont use rci. If you use it your opinion will be colored by your experience, good or bad
> 
> The whole idea of expecting like for like doesnt make sense to me...If you wanted something "like" what you were depositing, why didnt you keep and use what you own. The fact is that you want something different...either a different time, or a different place, or a different size.
> 
> What RCI tries to get for your deposit and what they might get for your deposit is of no concern to you now...Your concern should be what can you do with your 26 tpu....I just went to the RCI website...and you do have a lot of choices....For example you could do 3 weeks in a row in a 2 bedroom at Vacation Village at Parkway in December  Its not like for like...its a three for one in your favor...
> 
> I think your vc said it right..RCI has to balance supply and demand but that doesnt mean looking at each resort as its own special case..they have to look at their entire inventory...if they have lots of Vacation Village at Parkway inventory and only a few of what you deposited, they have to price things to encourage folks to go to Vacation Village at Parkway



I think like for like needs to be clarified. Maybe the term similar quality rather than like. I demand similar value for what I give up. There should NEVER be this much differential in TPU's.


----------



## Beefnot

MichaelColey said:


> Whether it was worth 26 or 47 or somewhere in between is yet to be seen (unless the week is already gone).
> 
> If they keep it listed at 47 and it doesn't move, or if they have to drop the TPU on it, it's worth less.
> 
> If they only offer 26 next year and nobody deposits that week, it's worth more.
> 
> As long as people will give their week for 26 TPU and others will give up 47 TPU for it, RCI will continue to offer 26 and ask 47.



But I wonder if folks are taking offense because it is  transparent.  In II, for example, if my deposited unit could only pull certain inventory, whereas only the most powerful traders could pull my deposited, we would be none the wiser as to the supply/demand/skim machinations going on behind the scenes. Hell, that may be what is actually happening too.


----------



## JulieAB

I  have to agree with Elaine. We bought where we want to go and its part of a mini system of 8-10 others, but RC I has others we'd rather go to, major being dvc (which we could never afford to buy or rent). Now with the option of tpus, getting just a one to one exchange elsewhere doesn't appeal as much as the chance to get more.   It's definitely a mixed bag! Maybe one of these years I'll try renting my extra week since it'd make decent money. I just have to figure out how to do it!


----------



## tschwa2

dougp26364 said:


> I think like for like needs to be clarified. Maybe the term similar quality rather than like. I demand similar value for what I give up. There should NEVER be this much differential in TPU's.



With the cost of exchanges and membership I expect something better than like for like.  I don't belong to RCI to pay $210 (exchange fee plus prorated membership fee) to trade my week 19 for a week 16 or 22 at a similar resort to what I own.  I'm trying to adjust what I own to either be what I want to use some years and can rent for at least the MF's fairly easy on years I don't want to use or can't use or something that will get me units that would cost me more to rent if I could find it available than what I pay in MF's plus trading fees to get.  I bought one unit before the change that I thought would be a good trader but found out after the change that it wasn't so much even though in 3 different exchange companies once deposited it was matched without ever hitting online availability.  

It sucks getting so much less but you just have to catch a deposit that RCI undervalued like a prime Hawaii Hilton or a 3 bedroom Summer or Ski at Smugglers Notch or an outerbanks summer week on the beach that slips through for 19-26 tpu's and don't deposit it with RCI again if you feel you aren't getting enough tpu's.


----------



## Egret1986

*I've been a member of RCI since 1984; however, I rarely deposit to my Weeks account.*



dougp26364 said:


> IMHO, this is anything but acceptable practice. If I'm not getting like for like in exchange, I'm not giving up my week. If more owners would do that, then the greed that is RCI might get tamed.



I rent out my timeshares now if I can't use them.  If I'm willing to drop the rent on them down to the maintenance fee that I paid, 100% of the time they rent.  In another thread, RCI has a "combine" offer as incentive for "certain" deposits.  Since I have some hanging TPUs from old deposits that will expire in a few months, I may deposit one of my weeks for 2013 that right now has a great TPU value.  We're planning for a 2-week Hawaii trip next year and the combined TPU's should cover those two exchanges.  Otherwise, I'm not too keen on depositing with RCI anymore.  The fees have become outrageous.  It's rarely beneficial for me to deposit what I own.  I still use RCI Points with some perceived benefit; primarily, because I still own two RCI Points timeshares that have very good point-to-mf ratios and I haven't been able to sell them.  The ability to trade for both Points and Weeks resorts provides a bit of an edge for the places that I like to go.


----------



## Icc5

*Live and Learn*



gnipgnop said:


> But Michael.........If you know you can not use your week a particular year and want to deposit it so that your can look for an exchange during another time of year AND knowing that depositing early always helps......well, that is why I did it.  Plus who am I to THINK it's worth more?  Sure I bet we all think WOW, our weeks should be worth much more than this.. but hey, RCI (*the Big Guy) say no, your only worth 26.  Then they turn around and place it for exchange to you for 47 tpu's I can just hear them (RCI) saying (IMO) "ha, ha, GOT YA"!  And no, I'm definitely not looking for sympathy I'm merely trying to let others know so they can BEWARE!!



Hopefully you will learn from this for future exchanges.  We recenly had an exchange that we weren't to happy with thru SFEXchange and let them know about it and why.  They were very nice and made things right for us.  If only RCI worked the same way.  What got me on our exchange is we spent hours checking everything out only to miss one thing which turned out to be major for us.
Bart


----------



## gandalf252002

To throw my two cents in here, not having an RCI account myself but having read several threads.  Could the OP have not checked first what the resort week they were depositing was being offered back for before depositing?  If they had known before that there was such a discrepancy maybe they would not have deposited it.


----------



## Kagehitokiri2

and this might be a "new" form of point/quasi point inflation

fun times


----------



## VacationForever

I was with RCI Weeks and then RCI Points for 12 years.  I always felt I got an even value out of all my trades + exchange fee.  No complaints.  Then when I switched to II after 12 years of ignorance I never looked back.  I switched to II because of one bad experience with RCI and I swore that I would not go back.  All my trades with II todate have resulted in even trade to as much as 6 times in value that I got back.  Maybe it is because I have weeks with good trading power.   I just will not go back to RCI.


----------



## MULTIZ321

elaine said:


> Waterside weeks owners cannot get II access--only if they bought BlueWater or Spinnaker flex-ownership. and, I think for flex, they pick your weekto deposit. Elaine



Elaine,

We own an EOY at Bluewater.  I thought what you said was true.  But last year, I picked a July summer week to vacation (Spinnaker didn't know beforehand that I was going to deposit the week into II).  When I deposited the July week with II - Spinnaker would not allow the deposit. They informed me that Spinnaker (not me) chooses the week they give to II  and if I remember correctly, a December week was given to II.

I haven't looked at the owner's doc's to see if that's addressed but certainly did not like how Spinnaker handled it.


Richard


----------



## Happytravels

*Me too*

We have been in this from the begining...I used to deposit our week 21 Memorial Day week at the Beach...We almost always got what we wanted for the week.(Hawaii, Florida several times, NJ and others).after the change and we have the deposit in RCI now almost a year...and still haven't found anything I wanted to use it for an exchange...they are all more TPU's then what they gave me..(19 I think)we are having a hard time justifying combining our weeks to have enough TPU for a trade we got years ago for the same week, plus membership fee, plus MF, so this years usage is going up for rent..if it is not rented...we are letting friends use at we can't due to our work schedule....it maybe time to sell.....it's looking like it more and more!!!!


----------



## elaine

Richard, what I meant was only BlueWater and Flex could use II. I knew they picked the week for Flex (from the owner's letter)--but didn't know any details for BlueWater. That stinks--maybe next time you can call and "negotiate" the week---maybe a spring or fall week that has a bit more value. Elaine


----------



## Beefnot

Happytravels said:


> We have been in this from the begining...I used to deposit our week 21 Memorial Day week at the Beach...We almost always got what we wanted for the week.(Hawaii, Florida several times, NJ and others).after the change and we have the deposit in RCI now almost a year...and still haven't found anything I wanted to use it for an exchange...they are all more TPU's then what they gave me..(19 I think)we are having a hard time justifying combining our weeks to have enough TPU for a trade we got years ago for the same week, plus membership fee, plus MF, so this years usage is going up for rent..if it is not rented...we are letting friends use at we can't due to our work schedule....it maybe time to sell.....it's looking like it more and more!!!!



Or try the independents. Can't hurt.


----------



## gnipgnop

I've read over and over suggestions to buy where you want to stay and we did exactly that.  We love Hilton Head and Waterside and wanted to stay there every year.  In fact the first time we visited there we came home and looked into buying our week.
But there are times in your life when that may be impossible.  Our week is fixed and it worked out for us many times but we could not use it last year and rec'd. 30 tpu's for our deposit.  Next year same problem is happening and thus we decided to deposit it again.  While searching for another week that we could possibly trade into is when I saw my week available for 47 tpu's.  

O-K, I'm over it now and it was a good lesson learned.  RCI will never get my week again.  I'll help to Starve the Beast.:ignore:


----------



## mbh

*Or they could rent it*

If nobody takes it for 47 TPU's can RCI rent it after it sits in the pool for a certain length of time? If so, there's the answer.


----------



## ampaholic

mbh said:


> If nobody takes it for 47 TPU's can RCI rent it after it sits in the pool for a certain length of time? If so, there's the answer.



I think RCI can rent it from the git go.


_"Mirrors on the ceiling,
The pink champagne on ice
And she said "We are all just prisoners here, of our own device"
And in the master's chambers,
They gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast"_

_Hotel California_


----------



## Tia

Yes I do believe RCI can and does rent desirable units given to them for deposit. 

Tina


----------



## dougp26364

ampaholic said:


> I think RCI can rent it from the git go.



Of course they can. Once you give you week to them, it's their's to do with as they please. I think if you read the terms of agreement you see they even put it in writing. 

The problem with RCI is they see no reason not to take what they want and give members whatever's left over. As long as people keep paying them for inferior exchanges, they'll keep doing it. It's sort of like Vegas. So long as people keep giving them money to play games where the the house always has the advantage, they'll keep taking the money. 

I'm not saying I.I. is any better or worse than RCI. I am saying RCI has become so crummy for us that they're not worth the effort anymore. RCI is maybe a little more blatent about how they cheat you. They take your unit and give you less for it than they take when someone wants to exchange in (skim), they rent units for less than what owners pay in MF's, they cancel reservaitons using the excuse the resort is overbooked and I'm sure I can think of a few more RCI twists of the knife. 

What I'm amazed is that members keep giving them their money and their units. Apparently, enough people either get what they want/need or, they don't mind getting less for their money. 

Timesharing is less than it was when we started in 1998. Originally I felt that the exchange companies were responsive to members and provided value. As the years have gone on I've seen an errosion in value for members and what looks like and increase in profits for the exchange companies. They're no longer satisfied with profits from membership dues, exchange fee's and value added features that are profitable such as cruise exchanges. Now they want to churn more profits out of exchange invnetory than is possible with just making exchanges. 

To that end we've moved what we can into internal systems that are still responsive to owners needs. I'm hoping they have to remain responsive since they're more directly linked to owners and since owners are a source of future sales and referals for new sales. The units that are not with internal exchange systems we either use for personal use or, in one case, we're considering getting rid of, even though it's still getting decent exchanges and has extremely cheap MF's. 

Change is constant. With timeshare one has to keep up and not hang onto the old ways. RCI and possibly I.I. are fast becoming old ways that are less than efficient methods of travel with timeshare ownership. IMHO, RCI's greed has outstripped both their common sense and their usefullness. I have no need for them and refuse to give them my $$ for inferior service and exchange value. I.I. appears to be moving in that same direction and I'm keeping my eye on what value they provide.


----------



## Beefnot

dougp26364 said:


> Of course they can. Once you give you week to them, it's their's to do with as they please. I think if you read the terms of agreement you see they even put it in writing.
> 
> The problem with RCI is they see no reason not to take what they want and give members whatever's left over. As long as people keep paying them for inferior exchanges, they'll keep doing it. It's sort of like Vegas. So long as people keep giving them money to play games where the the house always has the advantage, they'll keep taking the money.
> 
> I'm not saying I.I. is any better or worse than RCI. I am saying RCI has become so crummy for us that they're not worth the effort anymore. RCI is maybe a little more blatent about how they cheat you. They take your unit and give you less for it than they take when someone wants to exchange in (skim), they rent units for less than what owners pay in MF's, they cancel reservaitons using the excuse the resort is overbooked and I'm sure I can think of a few more RCI twists of the knife.
> 
> What I'm amazed is that members keep giving them their money and their units. Apparently, enough people either get what they want/need or, they don't mind getting less for their money.
> 
> Timesharing is less than it was when we started in 1998. Originally I felt that the exchange companies were responsive to members and provided value. As the years have gone on I've seen an errosion in value for members and what looks like and increase in profits for the exchange companies. They're no longer satisfied with profits from membership dues, exchange fee's and value added features that are profitable such as cruise exchanges. Now they want to churn more profits out of exchange invnetory than is possible with just making exchanges.
> 
> To that end we've moved what we can into internal systems that are still responsive to owners needs. I'm hoping they have to remain responsive since they're more directly linked to owners and since owners are a source of future sales and referals for new sales. The units that are not with internal exchange systems we either use for personal use or, in one case, we're considering getting rid of, even though it's still getting decent exchanges and has extremely cheap MF's.
> 
> Change is constant. With timeshare one has to keep up and not hang onto the old ways. RCI and possibly I.I. are fast becoming old ways that are less than efficient methods of travel with timeshare ownership. IMHO, RCI's greed has outstripped both their common sense and their usefullness. I have no need for them and refuse to give them my $$ for inferior service and exchange value. I.I. appears to be moving in that same direction and I'm keeping my eye on what value they provide.



Carolinian convinced me with those unrelenting essay-length diatribes that RCI was the evil empire.  If I can get what I want with II and the independents, I will never touch RCI.

As for the internal systems, makes sense. Except DRI. Whereas RCI nickles and dimes you to death, and rents prime exchanges out from under its members, DRI just jacks up it's MFs to high heaven and unscrupulously wrests control of boards and uses questionable tactics. In the end, they both deliver returns to their shareholders and execs, via different business models.


----------



## Carolinian

You really are a newby to spout that drivel.  Exchange companies make their money from EXCHANGE FEES and from MEMBERSHIP FEES.   Don't you comprehend that?  McDonald's and the pizza place, etc. do NOT charge you a membership fee or an exchange fee.

This is one area where RCI Points is more honest than ''Points Lite''.  At least in real Points, you get the same value for a week going in as for a week going out.

Giving different numbers of points lite at the same point in time for a deposit as opposed to the same week taken for exchange is just F-R-A-U-D!

Is addition to the limited supply / high demand weeks such as the OP's there is also the other side of the coin, the overbuilt areas, where there is a glut  of supply, and too often RCI does the exact opposite, give more points lite for a deposit than it charges for an exchange.

The best bet when confronted with these shady practices?  Tell the fraudsters at RCI to get stuffed and deposit your week with an independent exchange company. 




Ridewithme38 said:


> Do you think 7-11 pays the same for a slurpee as they sell it to you for? How about a Pizza place for the ingredients in their pizza? Think McDonalds pays the same for their burgers as they sell them?  Big Box stores like BJ's and Costco also have membership fees, but they still sell their products for more then they buy them for
> 
> Same with RCI, they paid you 26 TPU's for your week, it wouldn't make sense for them to sell it for 26 TPU's, no other company does that, why do you think they would?


----------



## Carolinian

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I think that is a common misperception about RCI. Like most companies RCI generates revenue from a variety of sources, and all of those are added together and netted against expenses to yield profit.
> 
> Take away one revenue source, and the company will try to make up the missing revenue somewhere else to maintain profitability.



Playing games on points lite values, with a different value in from the value out is a brand new way to add a ''fee''.  RCI does NOT do it in RCI Points.  Other exchange companies do not do it.

And what about the overbuilt resorts where they give more points lite for a deposit than they charge for a trade in.  Seems to me this is who is getting unfairly subsidized by these RCI practices.


----------



## heathpack

dougp26364 said:


> Of course they can. Once you give you week to them, it's their's to do with as they please. I think if you read the terms of agreement you see they even put it in writing.
> 
> The problem with RCI is they see no reason not to take what they want and give members whatever's left over. As long as people keep paying them for inferior exchanges, they'll keep doing it. It's sort of like Vegas. So long as people keep giving them money to play games where the the house always has the advantage, they'll keep taking the money.
> 
> I'm not saying I.I. is any better or worse than RCI. I am saying RCI has become so crummy for us that they're not worth the effort anymore. RCI is maybe a little more blatent about how they cheat you. They take your unit and give you less for it than they take when someone wants to exchange in (skim), they rent units for less than what owners pay in MF's, they cancel reservaitons using the excuse the resort is overbooked and I'm sure I can think of a few more RCI twists of the knife.
> 
> What I'm amazed is that members keep giving them their money and their units. Apparently, enough people either get what they want/need or, they don't mind getting less for their money.
> 
> Timesharing is less than it was when we started in 1998. Originally I felt that the exchange companies were responsive to members and provided value. As the years have gone on I've seen an errosion in value for members and what looks like and increase in profits for the exchange companies. They're no longer satisfied with profits from membership dues, exchange fee's and value added features that are profitable such as cruise exchanges. Now they want to churn more profits out of exchange invnetory than is possible with just making exchanges.
> 
> To that end we've moved what we can into internal systems that are still responsive to owners needs. I'm hoping they have to remain responsive since they're more directly linked to owners and since owners are a source of future sales and referals for new sales. The units that are not with internal exchange systems we either use for personal use or, in one case, we're considering getting rid of, even though it's still getting decent exchanges and has extremely cheap MF's.
> 
> Change is constant. With timeshare one has to keep up and not hang onto the old ways. RCI and possibly I.I. are fast becoming old ways that are less than efficient methods of travel with timeshare ownership. IMHO, RCI's greed has outstripped both their common sense and their usefullness. I have no need for them and refuse to give them my $$ for inferior service and exchange value. I.I. appears to be moving in that same direction and I'm keeping my eye on what value they provide.



Doug, out of curiosity, could you post a few examples of the trades you used to get and can no longer get?

H


----------



## Ridewithme38

Carolinian said:


> The best bet when confronted with these shady practices?  Tell the fraudsters at RCI to get stuffed and deposit your week with an independent exchange company.



What a great idea! I'll join an independent exchange company that has NOTHING of value for me to exchange into, MAYBE 1% of what RCI has available! That'll fix everything!


----------



## theo

*Yessa!*



gnipgnop said:


> RCI will never get my week again.  I'll help to Starve the Beast.



This philosophy and approach is the *only* way to have *any* hope of *ever* getting RCI's undivided attention. However, with so many RCI devotees apparently willing to keep on "feeding" the beast, continually giving up more and more only to continually receive less and less in return, I certainly won't be holding my breath.  

Meanwhile, RCI membership and / or usage is (and will certainly remain) a thing of the *past* for me...


----------



## e.bram

Ride: But that 99% is in overbuilt ares. We are looking for the 1%. But, if you are happy with overbuilt areas(Williamsburg, Massofnothing etc) good for you.Actually you are probably better off renting.Less money and more choice.


----------



## jlwquilter

Why is it so hard for people to understand that not everyone wants what they want? That RCI meets the needs quite well for some and not for others. That SFX and the other independents also suit for some and not for others. Some want to go to the same place every year - others want to go someplace new every year. One size does not fit all. Thank goodness!

This so reminds me of the driving speed 'joke' - except that it's true. Anyone driving faster than 'me' is a maniac and anyone slower is an idiot.

RCI and all the rest are businesses. They will do what they need to stay in business and make money. Sometimes that means great customer service for a certain price and other times poor customer service for a certain price. All businesses make a choice where they position themselves on those 2 lines and that choice will appeal to some customers and not to others.

And some people will seek to blame someone else for results from a decison they made themselves, of their own free will.


----------



## e.bram

Nobody is blaming anyone. Just informing and discussing with TUGGERS.


----------



## MichaelColey

theo said:


> This philosophy and approach is the *only* way to have *any* hope of *ever* getting RCI's undivided attention. However, with so many RCI devotees apparently willing to keep on "feeding" the beast, continually giving up more and more only to continually receive less and less in return, I certainly won't be holding my breath.


I agree with the first part, but I disagree with the underlying premise.  I think the vast majority of us *are* getting what we want out of RCI, otherwise why would we continue?

Obviously there are some who don't feel like they are getting value and are leaving for "greener pastures", but if you look at Wyndham's reports on their timeshare business (i.e. RCI), it's pretty clear that those are the exception rather than the rule.

I know I'm getting incredible value out of RCI.

The selection on RCI is unmatched.  II is the only exchange company that comes close, and they are barely in the same league.  When I search in the places I go, RCI usually has several times as many choices.  When I restrict my search to 2BR units (which is what we strongly prefer), the difference is even bigger.

The ability to combine and get deposit credits back greatly increase the flexibility.  On II, there are resorts I would like to get but I don't have enough trading power.  On RCI, I can combine.  On II, it's easy to "overpay" by using too good of a deposit.  On RCI, I get a deposit credit back.

On RCI, I can see exactly what my deposits will be worth and what it will take for exchanges I want.  On II, it's all a guess.

II is better in many ways (better quality resorts in general, better selection in SOME areas, lower fees, etc.) and I'm doing what I can there to maximize the value I get out of my timeshare portfolio, but it's been much harder for me to find value at II.


----------



## rickandcindy23

> The selection on RCI is unmatched. II is the only exchange company that comes close, and they are barely in the same league.



II has inventory hidden from view, which is why you don't see as much.  I enter an ongoing search and get matches within a few days sometimes.  There are some searches that never get matched, but usually they are searches I set up too close to the check-in date.  

Someone at II told a TUG member (cannot remember who?) that all II inventory is available online.  Not true, as evidenced by the immediate exchanges I get for my ongoings.


----------



## MichaelColey

In many cases, hidden inventory is no inventory to me.

For instance, I was recently looking for a 2BR timeshare in Vegas close to Caesar's Palace for a specific week.  (I have a convention I'll be going to there.)

In II, I was able to see 3 resorts.  The closest was 4 miles away.

In RCI, there were 6, including the HGVC at the Flamingo, in easy walking distance, just across The Strip.

I'm not going to set up an ongoing search for what I can't see when I have something I can see that works perfectly.

Now if I am searching for a specific resort, I'll certainly use an ongoing search.  But if I'm searching in a place that has a ton of resorts and my dates are set, I want to just see what my choices are and pick the one that's the best for me.


----------



## Ridewithme38

MichaelColey said:


> But if I'm searching in a place that has a ton of resorts and my dates are set, I want to just see what my choices are and pick the one that's the best for me.



+1, 99% of my searches are just browsing or a general time frame (June 22 - August 28) within driving distance of me, I don't think I've EVER searched for a specific resort.  RCI's map is what i use, then i look through the pictures of resorts and search threads on here for reviews, an on going going search does nothing for my browsing...if i can't see it in the open inventory, it doesn't exist to me...i have ONE vacation that i'm going to use an on-going search for.....But that's not planned till 2016...

II has been nothing but trouble for browsing, there just isn't enough to 'see' to do it


----------



## ronparise

RCI has provided me great value too

I deposit stuff I dont want or cant use..(in several cases within a week of check in); and have always been able to find something that I do want and can use. And to make it even better I am usually able to get 2 weeks for the one I deposit

How great is that?

I dont expect a trade up in size or quality, and I dont expect to exchange my converted hotel for a 5* resort, but I am always able to get something


----------



## laura1957

+2, another happy RCI customer here   When I am ready to make vacation plans, I want to make them NOW - not search and wait.  I know that works great for some people, and that is wonderful.  For me, I know where I want to go, and when and I want to sit down and make all the arrangements on the spot.  If I cant see it, I will pick something I CAN see.


----------



## ampaholic

This thread is like an episode of "Chopped" different chiefs making meals (vacations) with the oddball ingredients in the provided basket (RCI inventory).

Some make great entree's, some try hard but make flops and some just "phone it in".


----------



## dougp26364

heathpack said:


> Doug, out of curiosity, could you post a few examples of the trades you used to get and can no longer get?
> 
> H



With RCI, I never could get the exchanges I could with I.I. but, this has been maybe 8 or 9 years ago when I did exchange comparisons. Those comparisons were done using Branson shoulder season, which is heavily overpopulated at that time with inventory. With RCI I was offered ONE potential exchange for our HGVC points. With I.I. I was able to exchange up to one and sometimes two bedroom units using a Marriott studio week.


----------



## Carolinian

Ridewithme38 said:


> What a great idea! I'll join an independent exchange company that has NOTHING of value for me to exchange into, MAYBE 1% of what RCI has available! That'll fix everything!



Oh, I don't know.  Another Tugger just reported getting Paris with DAE.  Not long ago, I got a 2BR in London with SFX.  A few years ago, for me it was summer on the French Riviera with DAE.  I've gotten lots of good trades in the US, Caribbean, and Europe with independents.


----------



## theo

*Something for everyone, I guess...*

Well, if there is any one conclusion to be drawn here, it's likely "different strokes for different folks"...  

I choose to no longer have anything whatsoever to do with RCI. Maybe I'm just too focused on what I perceive (...a perception derived from first hand witnessing of RCI "practices" since the 1980's) as a steady, consistent downward RCI spiral / decline over the years, specifically from the standpoint of "value". 

That said, I'm glad for the people who feel that they are able to extract acceptable (...to them, anyhow)  "value" from their dealings with RCI.  Once again, to each his / her own....


----------



## Karen G

Carolinian said:


> Oh, I don't know.  Another Tugger just reported getting Paris with DAE.


My all-time best exchange was with DAE--a gorgeous two bedroom flat in London for two weeks. I traded Pueblo Bonito Rose and Manhattan Club for that and it was well worth it.


----------



## Ridewithme38

Carolinian said:


> Oh, I don't know.  Another Tugger just reported getting Paris with DAE.  Not long ago, I got a 2BR in London with SFX.  A few years ago, for me it was summer on the French Riviera with DAE.  I've gotten lots of good trades in the US, Caribbean, and Europe with independents.



I don't know any family with kids under 10 that would enjoy those location....How are those good trades if more then half of America wouldn't want to or be able to afford the flights for 5 people to go there?


----------



## ampaholic

Ridewithme38 said:


> I don't know any family with kids under 10 that would enjoy those location....How are those good trades if more then half of America wouldn't want to or be able to afford the flights for 5 people to go there?



Ride: you forgot to factor in the appeal to the vanity of Americans.


----------



## bbakernbay

What about RCI's 'Extra Vacations' deals.  Just picked up Mizner Place in Westin Fl for $249 for a beautiful one bedroom unit in November.  We were there last year and thought it was fantastic.

Less than $36 per night, amazing.

You can get the same thing by depositing your week (say $525 M.F.) and $175 RCI Exchange Fee for a total of $700 or $100 per night.

It now makes more sense to downsize to one RCI timeshare and if you are flexible, then cherry pick all the great Extra Vacations for $250 or thereabouts.  Cheaper than owning and exchanging.


----------



## d2r4s

*RCI points in and points out*

The only way to deal with this type of issue is to realize that RCI (Wyndham) is in the business of making money and we are there tool.  One by one if someone is unhappy and treated unfair then it is up to them to leave the fold.  If enough members do leave then the message is clear, if not then they will continue to do what they do, make money.

I checked when they changed systems and the seem to highly favor various resorts over others, and even in the same resorts have different points for a deposit than a trade.

II is and has always been a better place to trade, even with a smaller number of timeshares.

JB:annoyed: 



gnipgnop said:


> One week ago I deposited my Waterside by Spinnaker in Hilton Head, SC, 3 BR-3BA, Week 12 (spring break) into RCI.  I received 26 TPU's for this deposit.  Today I went looking on line and saw my week, Waterside by Spinnaker in Hilton Head, SC, 3BR-3BA, Week 12 (spring break) available to members for 47 TPU's.  I couldn't believe it!  I called and was told by a Guide, Connie, that there was nothing that could be done to change TPU's because they were set according to supply and demand blah, blah blah.
> then in the next breath she tells me that the demand is higher than the supply in HHI at that time of year.  WHAT!!
> 
> So I asked, keeping my cool, to speak to a Supervisor.  James (the supervisor) came on the line and told me basicly the same thing.  I told him I felt this was so unfair, giving me 26 TPU's and RCI asking 47.  That's a 21 TPU difference!  I paid $$$ for the week, pay maintenance fees yearly, paid for membership into RCI since 1994,....isn't there something you can do for a loyal member??  He said distinctly "NO".  So I told him that II was now accepting Spinnaker Resorts into their membership and maybe next year I will give the week to them.  He told me and I quote:  "if you feel that is something you want to do then do it."  He also told me that people are leaving II and coming back to RCI because II has too many problems.  I think he's full of crap.   How can you treat customers like this??   He said there was no way they will change the TPU's  once they are in your account.  I asked him why couldn't the tech. dept. make the change if the order came from a supervisor.  Got no where.  I am so pissed at RCI right now I could "spit".  Sorry to go on like this but I had to get it off my chest.


----------



## MLR

I had a 'weird' experience with RCI just recently. The last time I banked - it was with a good window - we got a good TPU for our Hawaii week.

I went to the RCI site to see what our 2013 week would be worth and the RCI calculator said 42 TPU's - even though they wanted 47 TPU's if you wanted to get it via their site. 

Anyway - 42 was ok with me. So, I tried to bank. Called RCI and was told I had to call Shell. Shell offered me 26 TPU's even though RCI site said it was worth 42. I REFUSED TO BANK IT FOR THAT AMOUNT and hung up.

I contacted our resort directly: Here is my email. 

QUOTED FROM EMAIL: 

*Last year you were able to help me deposit our Paniolo week with RCI and we were happy with the results.

This year, I called RCI to deposit and they referred me to Shell and I have discovered that our Christmas week (Dec. 21-28, 2013) is only worth 26 points with RCI even though the RCI website says it is worth 42 points. Susan, at Shell, whom I spoke to today, said that 26 points was the best they could do. 26 points out of a possible 42 points is a horrible exchange! RCI says that they want 47 points for the same week at Paniolo!!

How you got here: Date December 2013 Search Options Exchange Only Search Terms Used 
Keyword: paniolo greens 

2 Bedrooms 6 (6) Full Sat 21-Dec-2013 Sat 28-Dec-2013 Exchange Fee 47 

Is there anything we can do to up the trading power of our week? She said that RCI does not 'need' any more Paniolo weeks or something to that effect. I guess I do not understand why, if we have a week reserved and decide to 'bank' THAT particular week, why would IT not be worth the points that the RCI web site says it is worth - which is 42.  We got 38 points from our Paniolo week the last time we banked it and we banked it with far less time left for use. 
*

Next thing I know, I get an email from RCI saying my week had been banked and I got 42 TPU's. Go figure. Sadly, I still can't find a thing I want to trade for - but will keep looking. 

But, it was a very weird experience. We joined RCI just last year. We went ahead and accepted the transaction but were just about ready to use our week in Hawaii rather than get royally ripped - and yes, giving 26 TPU's for a week that they are asking 47 TPU's for is a rip off no matter how you look at it. 

Is RCI manipulating things so that they don't have to offer decent TPU's? Why would the website calculator say the week is worth 42 points and then they would only give us 26????  Something's fishy. I know there are many happy RCI members - but just get screwed and a person feels differently. 

Too bad the OP didn't check on how many TPU's their week was going for - they could have at least refused to bank. But Shell/RCI sure didn't want to willingly give me the TPU's that their own online calculator said the week was worth! That's scary.


----------



## Ridewithme38

MLR said:


> I had a 'weird' experience with RCI just recently. The last time I banked - it was with a good window - we got a good TPU for our Hawaii week.
> 
> I went to the RCI site to see what our 2013 week would be worth and the RCI calculator said 42 TPU's - even though they wanted 47 TPU's if you wanted to get it via their site.
> 
> Anyway - 42 was ok with me. So, I tried to bank. Called RCI and was told I had to call Shell. Shell offered me 26 TPU's even though RCI site said it was worth 42. I REFUSED TO BANK IT FOR THAT AMOUNT and hung up.
> 
> I contacted our resort directly: Here is my email.
> 
> QUOTED FROM EMAIL:
> 
> *Last year you were able to help me deposit our Paniolo week with RCI and we were happy with the results.
> 
> This year, I called RCI to deposit and they referred me to Shell and I have discovered that our Christmas week (Dec. 21-28, 2013) is only worth 26 points with RCI even though the RCI website says it is worth 42 points. Susan, at Shell, whom I spoke to today, said that 26 points was the best they could do. 26 points out of a possible 42 points is a horrible exchange! RCI says that they want 47 points for the same week at Paniolo!!
> 
> How you got here: Date December 2013 Search Options Exchange Only Search Terms Used
> Keyword: paniolo greens
> 
> 2 Bedrooms 6 (6) Full Sat 21-Dec-2013 Sat 28-Dec-2013 Exchange Fee 47
> 
> Is there anything we can do to up the trading power of our week? She said that RCI does not 'need' any more Paniolo weeks or something to that effect. I guess I do not understand why, if we have a week reserved and decide to 'bank' THAT particular week, why would IT not be worth the points that the RCI web site says it is worth - which is 42.  We got 38 points from our Paniolo week the last time we banked it and we banked it with far less time left for use.
> *
> 
> Next thing I know, I get an email from RCI saying my week had been banked and I got 42 TPU's. Go figure. Sadly, I still can't find a thing I want to trade for - but will keep looking.
> 
> But, it was a very weird experience. We joined RCI just last year. We went ahead and accepted the transaction but were just about ready to use our week in Hawaii rather than get royally ripped - and yes, giving 26 TPU's for a week that they are asking 47 TPU's for is a rip off no matter how you look at it.
> 
> Is RCI manipulating things so that they don't have to offer decent TPU's? Why would the website calculator say the week is worth 42 points and then they would only give us 26????  Something's fishy. I know there are many happy RCI members - but just get screwed and a person feels differently.
> 
> Too bad the OP didn't check on how many TPU's their week was going for - they could have at least refused to bank. But Shell/RCI sure didn't want to willingly give me the TPU's that their own online calculator said the week was worth! That's scary.



this was shell not rci that was saying you could get 26 tpu's for your week, some places bulk deposit with rci and will only give you what they want to give you...according to rci your week is worth 42....i'd flip out on shell if i were you!


----------



## ampaholic

MLR said:


> I had a 'weird' experience with RCI just recently. The last time I banked - it was with a good window - we got a good TPU for our Hawaii week.
> 
> I went to the RCI site to see what our 2013 week would be worth and the RCI calculator said 42 TPU's - even though they wanted 47 TPU's if you wanted to get it via their site.
> 
> Anyway - 42 was ok with me. So, I tried to bank. Called RCI and was told I had to call Shell. Shell offered me 26 TPU's even though RCI site said it was worth 42. I REFUSED TO BANK IT FOR THAT AMOUNT and hung up.
> 
> I contacted our resort directly: Here is my email.
> 
> QUOTED FROM EMAIL:
> 
> *Last year you were able to help me deposit our Paniolo week with RCI and we were happy with the results.
> 
> This year, I called RCI to deposit and they referred me to Shell and I have discovered that our Christmas week (Dec. 21-28, 2013) is only worth 26 points with RCI even though the RCI website says it is worth 42 points. Susan, at Shell, whom I spoke to today, said that 26 points was the best they could do. 26 points out of a possible 42 points is a horrible exchange! RCI says that they want 47 points for the same week at Paniolo!!
> 
> How you got here: Date December 2013 Search Options Exchange Only Search Terms Used
> Keyword: paniolo greens
> 
> 2 Bedrooms 6 (6) Full Sat 21-Dec-2013 Sat 28-Dec-2013 Exchange Fee 47
> 
> Is there anything we can do to up the trading power of our week? She said that RCI does not 'need' any more Paniolo weeks or something to that effect. I guess I do not understand why, if we have a week reserved and decide to 'bank' THAT particular week, why would IT not be worth the points that the RCI web site says it is worth - which is 42.  We got 38 points from our Paniolo week the last time we banked it and we banked it with far less time left for use.
> *
> 
> Next thing I know, I get an email from RCI saying my week had been banked and I got 42 TPU's. Go figure. Sadly, I still can't find a thing I want to trade for - but will keep looking.
> 
> But, it was a very weird experience. We joined RCI just last year. We went ahead and accepted the transaction but were just about ready to use our week in Hawaii rather than get royally ripped - and yes, giving 26 TPU's for a week that they are asking 47 TPU's for is a rip off no matter how you look at it.
> 
> Is RCI manipulating things so that they don't have to offer decent TPU's? Why would the website calculator say the week is worth 42 points and then they would only give us 26????  Something's fishy. I know there are many happy RCI members - but just get screwed and a person feels differently.
> 
> Too bad the OP didn't check on how many TPU's their week was going for - they could have at least refused to bank. But Shell/RCI sure didn't want to willingly give me the TPU's that their own online calculator said the week was worth! That's scary.



It sounds like RCI is "adjusting" their tactics to account for people who try to deposit decent holiday type weeks - but will hold it back if the week falls on a non holiday

Hey - PI will always give you three for one if you deposit 11 months or more out - and you are already a member.


----------



## tschwa2

Ridewithme38 said:


> this was shell not rci that was saying you could get 26 tpu's for your week, some places bulk deposit with rci and will only give you what they want to give you...according to rci your week is worth 42....i'd flip out on shell if i were you!



I agree that this one is all shell.  RCI never told you that they wouldn't give you 42 for the week.  The said (Shell won't verify the week you want to deposit so..) you will have to call Shell to get it done.  Then Shell tries to tell you that RCI doesn't want a holiday Hawaii week.  After complaining to your resort they deposit the requested week and RCI delivers on what they said you should get.


----------



## Margariet

So the OP deposits a week with RCI and gets 26 TPU's and is disappointed or mad because the OP sees the week back in the RCI inventory for 47 TPU's? Who says the week will remain 47 TPU's? Might become lesser if nobody takes it.

The last years I have booked so many bonus weeks, weeks for only 4, 5, 6, 7 TPU's in the best resorts. First, I am sure that all of these RCI members got more than this amount of TPU's in their account. Or are these weeks all developers weeks? Second, I was lucky because I got with my weeks much more weeks.

Maybe my week is offered for more TPU's as well but I got so many more weeks out of my weeks already. I won't complain. And RCi is not about charity. Like all exchange services or intermediate or broker services, timeshare exchange services have to make money.


----------



## Tamaradarann

*Exchanges should be the same value*



gnipgnop said:


> Thanks everyone ~ there's a lot of great support here.  I wish I could get my week back but I'm not sure how to go about doing it at this point.  I certainly agree that what TPU's are assigned to deposits should be the same amount that are needed for an exchanged.   Fair is fair!



I am not a weeks owner of RCI but a points owner.  Our weeks are always the same for the same season.  That model does reinforce that the TPU's should be the same for deposits and exchanges as in the points system.  However, I do sometimes question the values that RCI places on resorts.  We own a Gold Crown non ocean front Florida resort and our trading power is outstanding.  We have been able to get the equivalent of 2.5 weeks in a one bedroom not Distinguished Service on the island of Oahu in Hawaii in a one bedroom.  We have gotten the equivalent of 1.5 weeks in a one bedroom ocean front Gold Crown on the island of Kauai in Hawaii in a one bedroom.  We could get 2.5 weeks in a one bedroom Silver Crown ocean front in Florida.


----------



## Karen G

Margariet said:


> And RCi is not about charity. Like all exchange services or intermediate or broker services, timeshare exchange services have to make money.


And so I ask again, since no one has answered my question:  How does RCI make more money by giving someone 27 TPU's for their week and then requiring someone else to give up 46 TPU's to exchange for it? Doesn't RCI get the same exchange fee no matter how many TPU's it costs?


----------



## suzsaz

Can someone please explain where I can find out what a TPU is?

Thanks.


----------



## Karen G

suzsaz said:


> Can someone please explain where I can find out what a TPU is?
> 
> Thanks.


Here is RCI's description of their Deposit Trading Power Calculator. A TPU is a Trading Power Unit, I think, and shows the value of a particular week with regard to what it would be able to trade for.


----------



## MichaelColey

MLR said:


> I had a 'weird' experience with RCI just recently. The last time I banked - it was with a good window - we got a good TPU for our Hawaii week.
> 
> I went to the RCI site to see what our 2013 week would be worth and the RCI calculator said 42 TPU's - even though they wanted 47 TPU's if you wanted to get it via their site.
> 
> Anyway - 42 was ok with me. So, I tried to bank. Called RCI and was told I had to call Shell. Shell offered me 26 TPU's even though RCI site said it was worth 42. I REFUSED TO BANK IT FOR THAT AMOUNT and hung up.


Maybe Shell is giving an "average" TPU no matter what week is deposited?  Or maybe Shell doesn't know what they're doing?

You definitely did the right thing by holding out for more.

We've exchanged for Hawaii weeks that were 21 TPU or less (and I just saw a last minute one earlier today for 8 TPU!!!), so it looks like you could get two off season weeks for your one week (if you wanted).

You should be able to do quite a bit with 42 TPU.


----------



## MLR

MY Hawaii week was already confirmed with Shell back in December 2011. I got an email confirmation. I realize I am new at this game - but if I am an RCI member and I decide to bank my *confirmed week* and I check the RCI calculator and it says my week is worth 42 TPU's and I call RCI to bank - WHY do I get transferred to Shell? Why does Shell have the final say? As I said, I am new at this and I thought if I scheduled my week and it was confirmed - then it was mine to bank with RCI. I did not know I had to get 'permission' from Shell. If Shell has the final say - we would be screwed.

Sadly, had the resort not intervened - I would have gotten NOWHERE with Shell. What a crock.

Also, I have seen NO *comparable* resorts in Hawaii for 8 TPU's. There is a week available NEXT WEEK at Paniolo for a low TPU - but nothing else at Paniolo for low TPU's. Who can afford to buy airfare a week out?

I looked at Kauai resorts for early Dec. 2012. I have a friend who lives there and I mentioned the available resorts to him and asked his opinion of them and he said they were less than 'nice' - several were 'run down.' This person is well respected in the travel industry and I trust his opinion 100%. Needless to say - these resorts did not compare in quality to Paniolo. 

So, when depositing our week - it is sad when we are left with less than satisfactory options elsewhere in Hawaii or else we PAY to combine TPU's in order to get a week at a decent resort. 

Sure, we could go to Branson or the Ozarks or the Smoky Mountains or Florida - but those areas do not compare with Hawaii. They may be nice resorts - but the beach at Lake Tanycomo is not the same as Hapuna Beach on the Big Island. 

Does getting a shot at a nice resort with RCI require purchasing the 'ongoing search' - ???

We have had 1 mediocre trade and 2 nice trades so far - but it sure isn't easy finding them. None of them in Hawaii.


----------



## Beefnot

Karen G said:


> And so I ask again, since no one has answered my question:  How does RCI make more money by giving someone 27 TPU's for their week and then requiring someone else to give up 46 TPU's to exchange for it? Doesn't RCI get the same exchange fee no matter how many TPU's it costs?



Some thoughts were provided on page 1 of this thread.  Recombine fees, developer kickbacks, etc. Allso, maybe RCI can lure higher value deposits to exchange for what should be a lower value exchange.  There are a slew of ways to make out by shafting people on their trade value, when you look about it beyond the individual transaction and at the larger system of transactions.


----------



## ampaholic

I really think it is as simple as Shell tried to slip in a shoulder week as a substitute rather than depositing the primo week. 

When the poster complained Shell was caught out and had to deposit the primo week - likely concerned over Customer Service repercussions.


----------



## Carolinian

bbakernbay said:


> What about RCI's 'Extra Vacations' deals.  Just picked up Mizner Place in Westin Fl for $249 for a beautiful one bedroom unit in November.  We were there last year and thought it was fantastic.
> 
> Less than $36 per night, amazing.
> 
> You can get the same thing by depositing your week (say $525 M.F.) and $175 RCI Exchange Fee for a total of $700 or $100 per night.
> 
> It now makes more sense to downsize to one RCI timeshare and if you are flexible, then cherry pick all the great Extra Vacations for $250 or thereabouts.  Cheaper than owning and exchanging.



Cheap rentals was a big reason I did not cancel my *R*ents *C*ondos* I*nstead membership when I stopped using them for exchange, but there are non-member rental sites out there that offer good value, too, and when my longterm cheap SA-based membership finally expires, that is the way I will go.

The current business model of RCI discourages the ownership / exchange model of timesharing in many respects, whereas their former business model encouraged it.  I think that will come back to bite them in the ass eventually, but in business these days, so many want to goose short term profits at the expense of long term sustainability.


----------



## Carolinian

Last minute inventory in the leisure travel business is distressed inventory, and always has been.  If it is still in the bank at the last minute, you get it for less trading power.  That used to be done in the old RCI through the 45 day window.  It has always been that way for short shelf-life inventory.  It is the same, and always has been, if you make a last minute deposit, and get a lot less trading power for it.



Margariet said:


> So the OP deposits a week with RCI and gets 26 TPU's and is disappointed or mad because the OP sees the week back in the RCI inventory for 47 TPU's? Who says the week will remain 47 TPU's? Might become lesser if nobody takes it.
> 
> The last years I have booked so many bonus weeks, weeks for only 4, 5, 6, 7 TPU's in the best resorts. First, I am sure that all of these RCI members got more than this amount of TPU's in their account. Or are these weeks all developers weeks? Second, I was lucky because I got with my weeks much more weeks.
> 
> Maybe my week is offered for more TPU's as well but I got so many more weeks out of my weeks already. I won't complain. And RCi is not about charity. Like all exchange services or intermediate or broker services, timeshare exchange services have to make money.


----------



## Carolinian

Ridewithme38 said:


> I don't know any family with kids under 10 that would enjoy those location....How are those good trades if more then half of America wouldn't want to or be able to afford the flights for 5 people to go there?



Yeah, well, I am happy that there are some people out there like you who just love to go to the overbuilt areas.  Enjoy!

. . . but it is the realities of supply and demand that determine comparable value, and the areas I mention are very high demand and very low supply.  Also, demand is based on global demand, not any isolated group or subset.


----------



## Ridewithme38

I don't buy it, the reason the places are low supply is BECAUSE they have low demand, the places that are built to capacity(i.e. overbuilt in your opinion) are built that way to accommodate all the people that WANT to go there, just like the places with 'low supply' are built that way because of 'low demand' to accommodate that demand...If you compare the amount of people that travel to 'Williamsburg'(#1 family travel destination 2yrs in a row) or Disney every year to the amount of people that travel to the 'outer banks' or Hilton Head Island every year, you'll see why the supply is so low, because they only built for the handful of people that actually go there

Global Demand is just a silly statement, unless you are counting all the American's living in other countries, most other countries are nothing more then 'Travel Destinations' or 'tourist traps'



Carolinian said:


> Yeah, well, I am happy that there are some people out there like you who just love to go to the overbuilt areas.  Enjoy!
> 
> . . . but it is the realities of supply and demand that determine comparable value, and the areas I mention are very high demand and very low supply.  Also, demand is based on global demand, not any isolated group or subset.


----------



## e.bram

Ride:
You are saying people (like yourself) would rather go to Williamsburg than The Hamptons or Fire Island because they like it better? Those places have low(or no) supply because nobody wants to go there? I don't believe it! Actually think it might have something to do with land values? Maybe?


----------



## ronparise

I dont think Ride is saying why people prefer Williamsburg for a vacation rather than The Hamptons or Fire Island..only that they do

It may have to do with price, and it may have to do with other things, but that doesnt matter. ...the fact is more people go to Williamsburg than those other places. And the developers have met that demand with more timeshares and hotels than in those other places


----------



## Ridewithme38

e.bram said:


> Ride:
> You are saying people (like yourself) would rather go to Williamsburg than The Hamptons or Fire Island because they like it better? Those places have low(or no) supply because nobody wants to go there? I don't believe it! Actually think it might have something to do with land values? Maybe?



Honestly, Fire Island is nice to visit, but the 'atmosphere' isn't something i'd like my 6yr old daughter associating with, too much drinking, nude beaches & other things, i'd compare it to Key West....and the Hamptons are a Zoo from Memorial day to Labor day, i avoid even the highways that lead out there during that time frame....I'm more of a Montauk guy then a Hamptons guy.....

I'm 99% sure that if you asked people with young children if they'd rather bring their kids to Disney, williamsburg or to the Hamptons, Fire Island, they'd pick Disney, williamsburg every single time..And with the Majority of Americans having young children...

If i was part of the Minority, with no kid to travel with...I'd be at Fire Island every weekend....But i'm part of the Majority


----------



## bogey21

Karen G said:


> And so I ask again, since no one has answered my question:  How does RCI make more money by giving someone 27 TPU's for their week and then requiring someone else to give up 46 TPU's to exchange for it? Doesn't RCI get the same exchange fee no matter how many TPU's it costs?



If RCI gets 46 for something they paid 27 for, don't they have the difference with which to get another Exchange Fee?  Done over and over seems to me that this should result in more RCI profits.

George


----------



## Karen G

bogey21 said:


> If RCI gets 46 for something they paid 27 for, don't they have the difference with which to get another Exchange Fee?  Done over and over seems to me that this should result in more RCI profits.
> 
> George


I don't follow that statement.  If RCI gets one exchange fee for a unit that costs someome 46 TPU's to exchange for, wouldn't RCI be better off in assigning a lower number of TPU's to that unit so that a person would be able to get two exchanges for the same number of TPU's (say one costs 27 TPU's and another costs 20 TPU's).

RCI pays nothing for a timeshare week that a member deposits. They arbitrarily assign a value of a number of TPU's to it. Then another member uses whatever TPU's they have amassed based on the deposited weeks they have given to RCI PLUS the ever-increasing exchange fee.  RCI gets the exchange fee and the membership fee and any other developer kickbacks that are involved.  But RCI didn't have to give up anything to get the inventory in the first place.

If that's not how it works, please explain it to me.


----------



## ampaholic

bogey21 said:


> If RCI gets 46 for something they paid 27 for, don't they have the difference with which to get another Exchange Fee?  Done over and over seems to me that this should result in more RCI profits.
> 
> George



Actually quite the reverse is true:

If they "pay" 27 for it and "sell" it for 46 - over time they will have half as many exchanges by volume.

Extrapolate it out - they buy 500,000 weeks for 27 each = 13,500,000 tpu's total --- then they sell them for 46 tpu each; only 293,478 people will be able to "buy" a week before the 13,500,000 TPU's are "spent".

That is 206522 less exchanges than they would have otherwise had - at $189 each that is real money.

It would behoove them to sell the interval cheaper rather than more dear.


----------



## Ridewithme38

ampaholic said:


> Actually quite the reverse is true:
> 
> If they "pay" 27 for it and "sell" it for 46 - over time they will have half as many exchanges by volume.
> 
> Extrapolate it out - they buy 500,000 weeks for 27 each = 13,500,000 tpu's total --- then they sell them for 46 tpu each; only 293,478 people will be able to "buy" a week before the 13,500,000 TPU's are "spent".
> 
> That is 206522 less exchanges than they would have otherwise had - at $189 each that is real money.
> 
> It would behoove them to sell the interval cheaper rather than more dear.



I surmised in a previous thread that the difference between the sell and buy rate equaled the amount/value of weeks they took out of the pool for rental...I.E., they give you 27 TPU's for a week that they exchange for 42 TPU's, they now have 15 TPU's floating available, they can now take a 15 TPU's week out of the system and put it up for rental and nothing is lost


----------



## MichaelColey

Situations like this are the minority.  For almost all intervals I've looked at, the TP given for a deposit is comparable to or higher than the TP asked for an exchange.  This is also demonstrated by the rarity with which these types of complaints are made.

I can understand why RCI would have separate TP values.  For deposits, they want it to be pretty stable and not changing regularly.  If you think people are upset now, imagine what would happen if the TP for deposits changed frequently.  For exchanges, they want it to be more fluid so it'll adjust based on demand.  If weeks sit there, they drop the TP.  If they always disappear quickly (like DVC), they raise the TP.  Eventually, I would expect the two values to syncronize, but I would expect some inefficiencies like this.


----------



## ampaholic

Ridewithme38 said:


> I surmised in a previous thread that the difference between the sell and buy rate equaled the amount/value of weeks they took out of the pool for rental...I.E., they give you 27 TPU's for a week that they exchange for 42 TPU's, they now have 15 TPU's floating available, they can now take a 15 TPU's week out of the system and put it up for rental and nothing is lost



accounting shenanigans from Wyndham ... naaaaaaaa


----------



## Carolinian

ampaholic said:


> accounting shenanigans from Wyndham ... naaaaaaaa



ahhh!  I see you know the history of the company before it was called Wyndham!  Quite an accounting scandal then, and it shows a lot about the character of this company.


----------



## Beefnot

ampaholic said:


> Actually quite the reverse is true:
> 
> If they "pay" 27 for it and "sell" it for 46 - over time they will have half as many exchanges by volume.
> 
> Extrapolate it out - they buy 500,000 weeks for 27 each = 13,500,000 tpu's total --- then they sell them for 46 tpu each; only 293,478 people will be able to "buy" a week before the 13,500,000 TPU's are "spent".
> 
> That is 206522 less exchanges than they would have otherwise had - at $189 each that is real money.
> 
> It would behoove them to sell the interval cheaper rather than more dear.



You forget that they have a rental business to support.  Makes more money per interval than $189.


----------



## Carolinian

I can see that you have never studied tourism statistics at all.

You also have apparently not spent much time looking at RCI availibility in various places.  That tells the tale on supply and demand within timesharing.

Yeah, Pa and Ma Kettle may be satisified with the kitsch Europe of EPCOT or kitsch Africa of Animal Kingdom, but the more sophisticated Americans want to experience the real thing.  And you totally disregard all of the tourists from other countries outside the US, who BTW typically get a lot more vacation time from work than Americans do.

I was hardly the first one to use the term ''overbuilt'' on TUG.  It was widely used when I first posted here years ago.  One of the main TUG gurus of the day, Fletch, used to use it regularly, particularly with reference to Orlando.  So have RCI insiders who have posted here like Bootleg.

You seem to run down beach timeshares, but that just shows you are not a typical timesharer.  Beach destinations are often not easy to get.  Orlando, on the other hand always is.

You have also nevers looked at developer strategy.  They don't care where people want to go.  They build where they can get the right type of tour flows.  Orlando gets the right demographic for developers and enough quantity of people coming through that they will keep building. although the area has been overbuilt for years.




Ridewithme38 said:


> I don't buy it, the reason the places are low supply is BECAUSE they have low demand, the places that are built to capacity(i.e. overbuilt in your opinion) are built that way to accommodate all the people that WANT to go there, just like the places with 'low supply' are built that way because of 'low demand' to accommodate that demand...If you compare the amount of people that travel to 'Williamsburg'(#1 family travel destination 2yrs in a row) or Disney every year to the amount of people that travel to the 'outer banks' or Hilton Head Island every year, you'll see why the supply is so low, because they only built for the handful of people that actually go there
> 
> Global Demand is just a silly statement, unless you are counting all the American's living in other countries, most other countries are nothing more then 'Travel Destinations' or 'tourist traps'


----------



## Karen G

Beefnot said:


> You forget that they have a rental business to support.  Makes more money per interval than $189.


Ah, yes, the rental business. I didn't take that into consideration. Maybe that's part of the reason for raising the TPU value in OP's original scenario. If RCI makes the TPU value exceedingly high compared to the TPU value given to the depositor, RCI can then offer the week to renters because no exchangers wanted it badly enough to spend that many TPU's to get it.


----------



## Margariet

*More of these !*



MichaelColey said:


> Situations like this are the minority.  For almost all intervals I've looked at, the TP given for a deposit is comparable to or higher than the TP asked for an exchange.  This is also demonstrated by the rarity with which these types of complaints are made.
> 
> I can understand why RCI would have separate TP values.  For deposits, they want it to be pretty stable and not changing regularly.  If you think people are upset now, imagine what would happen if the TP for deposits changed frequently.  For exchanges, they want it to be more fluid so it'll adjust based on demand.  If weeks sit there, they drop the TP.  If they always disappear quickly (like DVC), they raise the TP.  Eventually, I would expect the two values to syncronize, but I would expect some inefficiencies like this.



I think Michael hits the nail on the head again. I do like his valuable comments.


----------



## ampaholic

Carolinian said:


> ahhh!  I see you know the history of the company before it was called Wyndham!  Quite an accounting scandal then, and it shows a lot about the character of this company.



Well, technically Cendant was able to "escape" by giving up Shelton and Forbes to the SEC - both went to Federal Prison as did several underlings.

Cendant however continued and morphed into among other names Wyndham. Shareholders were left to lick their wounds with regard to the 6.5 billion (yes *B*illion) that "vanished"

A very (very) dirty history indeed.


----------



## Ridewithme38

ampaholic said:


> Well, technically Cendant was able to "escape" by giving up Shelton and Forbes to the SEC - both went to Federal Prison as did several underlings.
> 
> Cendant however continued and morphed into among other names Wyndham. Shareholders were left to lick their wounds with regard to the 6.5 billion (yes *B*illion) that "vanished"
> 
> A very (very) dirty history indeed.



Wow, if i were them i wouldn't be making THAT mistake again!


----------



## arihillfarm

Karen G said:


> And so I ask again, since no one has answered my question:  How does RCI make more money by giving someone 27 TPU's for their week and then requiring someone else to give up 46 TPU's to exchange for it? Doesn't RCI get the same exchange fee no matter how many TPU's it costs?



In your example, they would make less money.  If the person who has 47 TPUs were able to get that unit for the 26 TPUs that RCI gave the owner, they would still have 21 TPUs left in their acct. to make a second exchange.

-Astrid


----------



## Karen G

arihillfarm said:


> In your example, they would make less money.  If the person who has 47 TPUs were able to get that unit for the 26 TPUs that RCI gave the owner, they would still have 21 TPUs left in their acct. to make a second exchange.
> 
> -Astrid


And that second exchange would bring in another exchange fee. RCI isn't paying anything for the week. They don't give up any kind of "value" for the TPU.  RCI doesn't pay anything or incur any expense for the TPU it assigns to a week.. It's just supposedly an indication for the owner of a timeshare what it is worth with regard to it's trading power. It is supposed to show what other exchanges they might be able to to get for the week they gave up.

When an owner makes an exchange, they make it with their TPU's (or points if you want to call it that) plus an exchange fee. The exchange fee is the only actual thing of monetary value in the transaction. The number of TPU's just give them "permission" to make the exchange.


----------



## Ridewithme38

Karen G said:


> And that second exchange would bring in another exchange fee. RCI isn't paying anything for the week. They don't give up any kind of "value" for the TPU.  RCI doesn't pay anything or incur any expense for the TPU it assigns to a week.. It's just supposedly an indication for the owner of a timeshare what it is worth with regard to it's trading power. It is supposed to show what other exchanges they might be able to to get for the week they gave up.
> 
> When an owner makes an exchange, they make it with their TPU's (or points if you want to call it that) plus an exchange fee. The exchange fee is the only actual thing of monetary value in the transaction. The number of TPU's just give them "permission" to make the exchange.



to be fair, we really don't know how they account for TPU's they may very well be a line on their balance sheet, sort of like commodities, the tpu's you receive would be the current melt value or the value of previous years, and the tpu's to exchange into at week could be 'futures' or what they 'expect' to receive in the future

Because, after all, the real thing they are selling on the weeks side are those tpu's, the weeks are just what you decide to do with those TPU's sort of like tokens at an arcade


----------



## Tamaradarann

*How RCI makes money on the different TPU's*



ampaholic said:


> Actually quite the reverse is true:
> 
> If they "pay" 27 for it and "sell" it for 46 - over time they will have half as many exchanges by volume.
> 
> Extrapolate it out - they buy 500,000 weeks for 27 each = 13,500,000 tpu's total --- then they sell them for 46 tpu each; only 293,478 people will be able to "buy" a week before the 13,500,000 TPU's are "spent".
> 
> That is 206522 less exchanges than they would have otherwise had - at $189 each that is real money.
> 
> It would behoove them to sell the interval cheaper rather than more dear.



I think your analysis is correct.  However, I think you demonstrated how RCI can make money on the different TPU's for depositing and exchanging.  If there are 206522 less exchanges RCI has 206522 weeks in their pool doing nothing.  Since they now own the weeks and nobody exchanged for them, they can put them on sale as last calls or possibly they put them on sale at a higher rate as extra vacations.  They are starting a big sale for tomorrow for extra vacations.

I know that Hilton rents out using open season, which is the same as last calls, the nights that are not booked to members.  They also rent out nights to non members but I am not sure if those nights are nights that are not booked or nights that are available since the timeshare owner is maintenance fee delinquent.


----------



## ronparise

It seems to me that what gets deposited into RCI are weeks, and what gets taken out are also weeks...The tpu are nothing but the medium of exchange

So if I am able to deposit my one Vacation Village at Parkway week  and take out 3 weeks at the same resort (or another) then someone else is going to have to deposit 3 weeks for an exchange into one week.

The weeks have to balance; TPU do not.


----------



## ampaholic

ronparise said:


> It seems to me that what gets deposited into RCI are weeks, and what gets take out are also weeks...The tpu are nothing but the medium of exchange
> 
> So if I am able to deposit my one Vacation Village at Parkway week  and take out 3 weeks at the same resort (or another) then someone else is going to have to deposit 3 weeks for an exchange into one week.
> 
> The weeks have to balance; TPU do not.



There are always more weeks deposited than are taken out, some rot on the shelves.

Developers and HOA's bulk deposit hundreds at a time and don't take any out.

It is *not* a zero sum game.

And if the TPU don't balance RCI is playing with fire in the form of the Secret Service - it is quite illegal to create a private currency.

If the TPU's are "tokens" as Ride points out no issue as long as there are as many tokens sold as are bought.

If they create more tokens in service than what are bought they are creating a "fiat" currency and are cruising for a bruising.


----------



## HawaiiLove1

Does RCI have some sort of "converter" that can be accessed by owners that shows what your week will be worth in TPU's if you deposit?


----------



## ampaholic

HawaiiLove1 said:


> Does RCI have some sort of "converter" that can be accessed by owners that shows what your week will be worth in TPU's if you deposit?



yes but you have to have an account to access it.


----------



## Tamaradarann

ronparise said:


> It seems to me that what gets deposited into RCI are weeks, and what gets take out are also weeks...The tpu are nothing but the medium of exchange
> 
> So if I am able to deposit my one Vacation Village at Parkway week  and take out 3 weeks at the same resort (or another) then someone else is going to have to deposit 3 weeks for an exchange into one week.
> 
> The weeks have to balance; TPU do not.



However, if a number of people deposit 10 weeks and get 25 TPU's each that is 250 TPU's available for exchanging.  If those ten weeks are valued by RCI as 50 TPU's each for exchange the 10 weeks that weeks that were deposited can only exchange for 5 weeks and the other 5 weeks are RCI's to rent for profit.


----------



## MichaelColey

ronparise said:


> The weeks have to balance; TPU do not.


Neither have to balance.  Many people deposit weeks and let them expire.  Many exchange companies give 2 (or even 3) weeks for one deposit.  Plus you have developer weeks being thrown into the pool.



ampaholic said:


> And if the TPU don't balance RCI is playing with fire in the form of the Secret Service - it is quite illegal to create a private currency.


I'm not so sure this would apply.  What about frequent flyer programs, S&H stamps, RCI Points, MyPoints, and other similar things?  I don't see it as being any different than these types of things.


----------



## geekette

dougp26364 said:


> IMHO, RCI's greed has outstripped both their common sense and their usefullness.



I share this opinion.  excessive greed.


----------



## geekette

ampaholic said:


> Ride: you forgot to factor in the appeal to the vanity of Americans.



Excuse me?  Wanting to go see other parts of teh world makes me vain?  

Also, Ride, some of us aren't saddled with tots and can go where we please without regard to school calendars.  Are you saying that you have no desire to see anything other than the US?  that when you are an empty nester you have no plans to see Europe or Asia or Carribbean islands?  That's fine. FOR YOU, but let's not pretend that plenty of American FAMILIES can and do fly out of this continent to see others.  Just because it isn't your cup of tea doesn't mean that NOBODY with kids does it.

I think you also are being short-sighted about the independents.  If you haven't looked into them how can you be so sure there is nothing you want?


----------



## ronparise

Tamaradarann said:


> However, if a number of people deposit 10 weeks and get 25 TPU's each that is 250 TPU's available for exchanging.  If those ten weeks are valued by RCI as 50 TPU's each for exchange the 10 weeks that weeks that were deposited can only exchange for 5 weeks and the other 5 weeks are RCI's to rent for profit.



Those other 5 weeks may be available to me as well. When I deposit my one week, a year in advance and get 25 tpu and make my exchange a week before check in at 5 tpu I get 5 weeks for the one deposited. RCI has to "find" these weeks somewhere. Im suggesting they get them from the folks that have to combine 2 or 3 deposits to get that one week they want

Ill modify the position I took in my above post to say RCI must always have on the shelf, more deposits than they have folks wanting to exchange. The excess are theirs to rent or let go to waste as they see fit

My point is the same;  its weeks that they have to keep an eye on. TPU are the currency that they can manipulate (like the federal reserve) to keep the supply and demand for weeks at their desired ratios

For example If they see a big demand for weeks at a particular resort they can raise the tpu required for an exchange to a level where the demand falls off. or if they have a glut of weeks that no one is asking for, they can reduce the TPU required, until those weeks jump off the shelf

If I understand it right the TPU calculator gives the tpu that an owner can get for their deposit, so that side of the equation is somewhat fixed. The tool they use to bring demand in line with their needs is the TPU required for an exchange

Of course they will always be on the lookout for weeks they can rent for more than the exchange fee

So how does RCI make more money by setting tpu for an exchange twice as high as the tpu given for the deposit?...They guarantee that no one will want to exchange for this week and so they can rent it for more


----------



## bnoble

> excessive greed.



Nonsense.  When it comes to a for-profit company, there is no such thing as "excessive greed."  The entire raison d'être of any such company is to *make more money*.  

The only constraint is that you have to make money without breaking the law.  That's it.  What's more, for a publicly-held company, the company is failing its fiduciary duty to its shareholders if it is not making every dollar it can.

That said,  in the course of making money, most companies also deliver good value to some of the people with whom they do business.  It is a customer's job to figure out if they are getting good value, or if they should take our business elsewhere.  Companies that successfully convince their customers that they are getting good value, while making money themselves, succeed.  Those that don't fail.

It's been said upthread, but RCI's primary customer is not the individual timeshare owner.  RCI's primary customer is the developer.  Developers bring affiliation agreements.  Affiliation agreements bring members.  Members bring their exchange business with them, mostly through inertia, but also possibly with intent.

Our goal as informed consumers is simple: does RCI (or, indeed, any exchange company) deliver value, or not?  When it does, make use of their services.  When it doesn't, don't.  

As an added twist, most of us have more than one way to "access" RCI.  For example, I have a regular Weeks account, and the Wyndham portal---both paid for out of my annual Wyndham fees.  They offer vastly different value propositions.  The regular Weeks account does better for "cheap" weeks with low TPU values.  The Wydnham portal over-averages; it does very poorly for "cheap" weeks, but better for "expensive" ones.  As an example, I recently confirmed a week at Disney's BCV in a 1BR for Food & Wine.  That's a primo reservation for those not allergic to the Mouse, one that Disney owners fight for.  And, in Weeks, it's ridiculously over-priced at 41 TPU.  However, through the Wyndham RCI portal, my total cost was less than $560.  After subtracting out the exchange fee and the DVC extortion fee, you'd need a $/TPU ratio of less than $6.75 to beat that in Weeks.

Over time, I expect those sorts of market inefficiencies to continue to disappear.  When they do, I'll stop using RCI.  But, until they do, I plan on making hay, and I don't care if RCI is "evil" or "greedy".  I'm in it for my family's vacations.


----------



## geekette

Ridewithme38 said:


> Honestly, Fire Island is nice to visit, but the 'atmosphere' isn't something i'd like my 6yr old daughter associating with, too much drinking, nude beaches & other things, i'd compare it to Key West....and the Hamptons are a Zoo from Memorial day to Labor day, i avoid even the highways that lead out there during that time frame....I'm more of a Montauk guy then a Hamptons guy.....
> 
> I'm 99% sure that if you asked people with young children if they'd rather bring their kids to Disney, williamsburg or to the Hamptons, Fire Island, they'd pick Disney, williamsburg every single time..And with the Majority of Americans having young children...
> 
> If i was part of the Minority, with no kid to travel with...I'd be at Fire Island every weekend....But i'm part of the Majority



Believe it or not, I was a young child once.  And my parents never took us to Williamsburg nor Disney.  We went to the Carolinas (Myrtle Beach a lot), amusement parks throughout the country (tho never Disney's), went west, saw mountains, etc.  We drove all over.  I don't ever recall there even being discussion of W'burg nor Mousetown.

as an adult, I still have no interest in Williamsburg nor Disney.  While MANY desire those places, plenty of us never had interest and never will.  

I also disagree that the majority of Americans have young children.  I don't even think that the majority of people "with kids" have young children.


----------



## geekette

Ridewithme38 said:


> Global Demand is just a silly statement, unless you are counting all the American's living in other countries, most other countries are nothing more then 'Travel Destinations' or 'tourist traps'



???

Inflammatory.  Ridiculous.

Doesn't compute.  You dig visiting domestic tourist traps (Disney and Williamsburg) yet denigrate "most other countries" that you now call tourist traps.


----------



## Tia

geekette said:


> I share this opinion.  excessive greed.



Yes it's obvious to me too


----------



## RBERR1

My question is how is this any difference than the skim that occurs in Marriott's new internal system. They charge an annual fee and an initiation fee and the pts you get is always less than the pts it will cost to trade back in  Now there is no exchange fee on top in the Marriott system but maybe RCI is taking a page out of Marriott's book.


----------



## bnoble

> how is this any difference than the skim that occurs in Marriott's new internal system.


As I understand it, Marriott always skims.  RCI sometimes taketh, and sometimes giveth.  (My weeks get a few TPU more than it takes to exchange back in, on average.)


----------



## e.bram

Ride:
If any place is a tourist trap it is Orlando and Williamsburg(exist only for tourists). Paris, Firenze, Roma etc. exist on their own.
ps. Like being in Disneyland only it is real not artificial. when I travel I see many "tourists" with kids of all ages introducing them to the origin of Western Civilization not made up contrivances.


----------



## Carolinian

. . . and do not forget RCI's massive network of rental outlets to non-members, as well.



Tamaradarann said:


> I think your analysis is correct.  However, I think you demonstrated how RCI can make money on the different TPU's for depositing and exchanging.  If there are 206522 less exchanges RCI has 206522 weeks in their pool doing nothing.  Since they now own the weeks and nobody exchanged for them, they can put them on sale as last calls or possibly they put them on sale at a higher rate as extra vacations.  They are starting a big sale for tomorrow for extra vacations.
> 
> I know that Hilton rents out using open season, which is the same as last calls, the nights that are not booked to members.  They also rent out nights to non members but I am not sure if those nights are nights that are not booked or nights that are available since the timeshare owner is maintenance fee delinquent.


----------



## Carolinian

The problem in many businesses is leadership that wants to goose short term profits to benefit bonuses and the like, but with no regard to the consequences on long term sustainability.  Cendant came in, took a look at the RCI model built by Mrs. deHahn, the founder of the company, which was based on long term sustainability and synergies between RCI, HOA's, and members, and decided to turn that on its head, and focus instead on goosing short term profits.  Eventually, they will reep what they have sown, and I would not want to be a shareholder on their company.  Their accounting scandal is just a prelude to their mismanagement of the exchange program of RCI.




bnoble said:


> Nonsense.  When it comes to a for-profit company, there is no such thing as "excessive greed."  The entire raison d'être of any such company is to *make more money*.
> 
> The only constraint is that you have to make money without breaking the law.  That's it.  What's more, for a publicly-held company, the company is failing its fiduciary duty to its shareholders if it is not making every dollar it can.
> 
> That said,  in the course of making money, most companies also deliver good value to some of the people with whom they do business.  It is a customer's job to figure out if they are getting good value, or if they should take our business elsewhere.  Companies that successfully convince their customers that they are getting good value, while making money themselves, succeed.  Those that don't fail.
> 
> It's been said upthread, but RCI's primary customer is not the individual timeshare owner.  RCI's primary customer is the developer.  Developers bring affiliation agreements.  Affiliation agreements bring members.  Members bring their exchange business with them, mostly through inertia, but also possibly with intent.
> 
> Our goal as informed consumers is simple: does RCI (or, indeed, any exchange company) deliver value, or not?  When it does, make use of their services.  When it doesn't, don't.
> 
> As an added twist, most of us have more than one way to "access" RCI.  For example, I have a regular Weeks account, and the Wyndham portal---both paid for out of my annual Wyndham fees.  They offer vastly different value propositions.  The regular Weeks account does better for "cheap" weeks with low TPU values.  The Wydnham portal over-averages; it does very poorly for "cheap" weeks, but better for "expensive" ones.  As an example, I recently confirmed a week at Disney's BCV in a 1BR for Food & Wine.  That's a primo reservation for those not allergic to the Mouse, one that Disney owners fight for.  And, in Weeks, it's ridiculously over-priced at 41 TPU.  However, through the Wyndham RCI portal, my total cost was less than $560.  After subtracting out the exchange fee and the DVC extortion fee, you'd need a $/TPU ratio of less than $6.75 to beat that in Weeks.
> 
> Over time, I expect those sorts of market inefficiencies to continue to disappear.  When they do, I'll stop using RCI.  But, until they do, I plan on making hay, and I don't care if RCI is "evil" or "greedy".  I'm in it for my family's vacations.


----------



## kenie

ronparise said:


> For example If they see a big demand for weeks at a particular resort they can raise the tpu required for an exchange to a level where the demand falls off. or if they have a glut of weeks that no one is asking for, they can reduce the TPU required, until those weeks jump off the shelf
> 
> So how does RCI make more money by setting tpu for an exchange twice as high as the tpu given for the deposit?...They guarantee that no one will want to exchange for this week and so they can rent it for more



But if they raise the TPU required because it is a high demand area so that fewer can exchange into it, that would then allow them to rent the deposited high value weeks.


----------



## Tamaradarann

*Children and vacations*



geekette said:


> Believe it or not, I was a young child once.  And my parents never took us to Williamsburg nor Disney.  We went to the Carolinas (Myrtle Beach a lot), amusement parks throughout the country (tho never Disney's), went west, saw mountains, etc.  We drove all over.  I don't ever recall there even being discussion of W'burg nor Mousetown.
> 
> as an adult, I still have no interest in Williamsburg nor Disney.  While MANY desire those places, plenty of us never had interest and never will.
> 
> I also disagree that the majority of Americans have young children.  I don't even think that the majority of people "with kids" have young children.



I agree the majority of people don't have young children.  Even if you count people with young grandchildren and great grand children.  However, you missed out on going to Disney and Williamsburg as a child.  If you have any of the above take the opportunity.  We went to Disney with young Grandchildren last year and will be going to Williamsburg this June.


----------



## Ridewithme38

Tamaradarann said:


> I agree the majority of people don't have young children.  Even if you count people with young grandchildren and great grand children.





> Nearly one-in-five American women ends her childbearing years without having borne a child


http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1642/more-women-without-children

Thats 20% of american's who haven't had a young child, don't forget guys, everyone that has a child recently had a 'young' child...I'd say 80% is definitely a majority


----------



## Tamaradarann

Ridewithme38 said:


> http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1642/more-women-without-children
> 
> Thats 20% of american's who haven't had a young child, don't forget guys, everyone that has a child recently had a 'young' child...I'd say 80% is definitely a majority



It is true that the majority of people at one time in their lives have young children.  However, this is timeshare users group and the issue that is being discussed is that in this time of their lives do the timeshare owners have young children that they are vacationing with and, therefore, would want to go to a location that would be attractive and suitable to young children such as Disney and Williamsburg.


----------



## Tamaradarann

*Hilton doesn't skim points*



RBERR1 said:


> My question is how is this any difference than the skim that occurs in Marriott's new internal system. They charge an annual fee and an initiation fee and the pts you get is always less than the pts it will cost to trade back in  Now there is no exchange fee on top in the Marriott system but maybe RCI is taking a page out of Marriott's book.



I don't know that Marriott system so I can't comment on it.  However, the Hilton system doesn't skim points.  You get the assigned points for the unit and season that you purchase and can use your points to book that unit and season or any other same size unit and season anywhere in the Hilton Grand Vacation System.  Also, if you trade up or down in size or season it is uniform for the same size and season everywhere in the Hilton Grand Vacation System. 

The RCI point system doesn't skim points either.  While it works the same way as Hilton with respect to trading back in to the resort you purchased, the RCI points does have differences in points by resort and season but it doesn't change like the stock market it is published in the annually published book.


----------



## Mel

Tamaradarann said:


> It is true that the majority of people at one time in their lives have young children.  However, this is timeshare users group and the issue that is being discussed is that in this time of their lives do the timeshare owners have young children that they are vacationing with and, therefore, would want to go to a location that would be attractive and suitable to young children such as Disney and Williamsburg.


I wouldn't argue about whether the majority of timeshare owners have young children, but I also wouldn't argue that those two destinations are most popular among those with young children either.

To be honest, Williamsburg isn't the greatest destination with young children, as they won't get much out of the historic sites, and won't like walking very much.  The demand for Williamsburg is driven by the fact that it is a driveable distance for a large percentage of the US population, and it has something to offer all ages.

Disney is similarly popular among a large set of demographics for similar reasons.  While it is not a drive-to destination for as many people, it is easy to fly in, and cheap from many parts of the country.  For the colder area, it is a nice break in the middle of winter also.  And just like Williamsburg, they offer something for everyone.  I know many families that vacation there regularly who don't have young children, some who don't have any.  There are plenty of things to do in the are other than visit the mouse, but the mouse also draws many adults - some of whom look forward to a trip to WDW without any children, so they can enjoy the attractions more suited to the adults.


----------



## Tamaradarann

*Young Children*



Mel said:


> I wouldn't argue about whether the majority of timeshare owners have young children, but I also wouldn't argue that those two destinations are most popular among those with young children either.
> 
> To be honest, Williamsburg isn't the greatest destination with young children, as they won't get much out of the historic sites, and won't like walking very much.  The demand for Williamsburg is driven by the fact that it is a driveable distance for a large percentage of the US population, and it has something to offer all ages.
> 
> Disney is similarly popular among a large set of demographics for similar reasons.  While it is not a drive-to destination for as many people, it is easy to fly in, and cheap from many parts of the country.  For the colder area, it is a nice break in the middle of winter also.  And just like Williamsburg, they offer something for everyone.  I know many families that vacation there regularly who don't have young children, some who don't have any.  There are plenty of things to do in the are other than visit the mouse, but the mouse also draws many adults - some of whom look forward to a trip to WDW without any children, so they can enjoy the attractions more suited to the adults.



I think we may need to define young children.  My Grandchildren are 7 and 9 and I consider them young children.  I would not consider teenagers young children.  I wouldn't bring children under 6 to Williamsburg.  My grandchildren flipped over Disney last year at 6 and 8.  We will be intermixing Colonial Williamsburg with Busch Gardens and the Water Park to keep the trip educational mixed with kid fun.  The 9 year old will be studying American History in 5 grade this fall and will be going on a field trip to Gettsburg so this should be about right for his age and his Brother is always striving to be up there with big Brother.


----------



## Carolinian

What RCI really needs is some true transparency on how its numbers racket is established.  They already provide similar transparency on how award status is decided, providing both the formula and the underlying numbers. They should do that for trading power numbers, too.

Right now it is at least easy to tell if your resort / week is overpointed, underpointed, or valued properly at RCI.  Keep track of the values they give for deposit versus those they charge for an exchange at the same point in time.  If RCI consistently gives more for a deposit than they charge for an exchange, then you resort is overpointed. In that case, you should probably stick with RCI as you are getting the gold mine while others are getting the shaft, to paraphrase the old country music song.  If they consistently give less for a deposit than they charge for an exchange, then your resort is underpointed and you should look for a different exchange company.  If it usually runs at similar numbers for both sides of the transaction, then they are treating your resort fairly.


----------



## 876nick

RCI is just GREEDY-PLAIN AND SIMPLE.  THE SCAM OF HOLDING OUR DEPOSITS AND SELLING THEM  FOR PROFIT INSTEAD OF BEING AVAILABLE FOR OWNERS-MEMBERS , NOW, AFTER GETTING BUSTED THEY CHANGE THE GAME AND COME UP WITH ANOTHER SCAM  ---THIS ONE.         I AM DONE WITH RCI


----------



## WinniWoman

Just by virtue of the cost of exchanging - membership fees, exchange fees and insurance for the exchanges - you should look for another exchange company or not exchange at all. These fees can now be equal or up to half your maintenance fees! Go where you own or rent extra vacations from other owners.


----------



## vckempson

Count me as a HAPPY, HAPPY customer of RCI these days.  Great vacations, great costs, great availalbility, and clear disclosure to know what's worth doing or not doing.

If it's not working out like that for someone, they should vote with their dollars and either leave RCI or change what they own.  For the majority, though, the advent of TPU's opened up a whole new world where we all have a shot the great trades only dreamed of five years ago... and at a fraction of the cost from years gone by if you do a little work.

Hurah!   

Change is hated by many, but cherished by those who look to take advantage of it.   Mix up your portfolio if needed and get your TPU costs down below $15.  You'll stop crying the blues and start singing the praises of RCI and what all you can exchange into.  Come on folks, it's hard to be unhappy with $500 to $600 a week in a nice condo vacation home.  

To the OP, unless you are specifically looking to trade *back in*  to your deposited week, it's completely irrelevant how much that trade would cost.  Remember, your deposit can ONLY go up in value (not will but can) and the exchange rate is likely to only come down.  It's not a static equation and the real outcome isn't known until later.  Thank goodness our deposits don't get reduced when the ultimate exchange rate ends up bringing LESS than your deposit value.


----------



## WinniWoman

vckempson said:


> Count me as a HAPPY, HAPPY customer of RCI these days.  Great vacations, great costs, great availalbility, and clear disclosure to know what's worth doing or not doing.
> 
> If it's not working out like that for someone, they should vote with their dollars and either leave RCI or change what they own.  For the majority, though, the advent of TPU's opened up a whole new world where we all have a shot the great trades only dreamed of five years ago... and at a fraction of the cost from years gone by if you do a little work.
> 
> Hurah!
> 
> Change is hated by many, but cherished by those who look to take advantage of it.   Mix up your portfolio if needed and get your TPU costs down below $15.  You'll stop crying the blues and start singing the praises of RCI and what all you can exchange into.  Come on folks, it's hard to be unhappy with $500 to $600 a week in a nice condo vacation home.
> 
> To the OP, unless you are specifically looking to trade *back in*  to your deposited week, it's completely irrelevant how much that trade would cost.  Remember, your deposit can ONLY go up in value (not will but can) and the exchange rate is likely to only come down.  It's not a static equation and the real outcome isn't known until later.  Thank goodness our deposits don't get reduced when the ultimate exchange rate ends up bringing LESS than your deposit value.



Even before TPU's, I always got very good exchanges through RCI. But, with all the fees going up and already paying amost $750.00 per week in maintenance fees at my home resort, never mind if I need to pay for airfare, I feel it's not worth the hassle of trying to obtain the week/place you want. Sure, it is still a good deal even if you are paying $1000 for the exchanged week, but I can rent a week for that - even less- and not be tied into paying yearly membership fees, insurance fees, exchange fees, and the headache of trying to work the system, and, in addition, just go to my home resort for the scheduled weeks, since I have to pay the maintenance fees anyway. The years when I can't afford to go an extra week, or just don't want to go elsewhere, I don't. If I couldn't go to my home resort for some reason, I would try to rent it or give the week to a family member to use that year. I don't see the value in RCI as much anymore, but agree it might be a good option for others depending on their situation.


----------



## MichaelColey

vckempson said:


> Change is hated by many, but cherished by those who look to take advantage of it. Mix up your portfolio if needed and get your TPU costs down below $15. You'll stop crying the blues and start singing the praises of RCI and what all you can exchange into. Come on folks, it's hard to be unhappy with $500 to $600 a week in a nice condo vacation home.


$500 to $600? That's only for the cream of the crop. I'm currently in a 2BR Presidential unit at Silverleaf's Villages that cost me less than $250 for a week. (I used 5 TPU that cost me $10/TPU plus the $189 exchange fee).


----------



## vckempson

MichaelColey said:


> $500 to $600? That's only for the cream of the crop. I'm currently in a 2BR Presidential unit at Silverleaf's Villages that cost me less than $250 for a week. (I used 5 TPU that cost me $10/TPU plus the $189 exchange fee).



IYou and I get unusually good trades, because our TPU cost is *way* below most.  My trades usually cost me no more than $350 including exchange fee and TPU cost.

I was trying to price it based on $15/TPU (25 TPU trade), which should be easy for anyone to aquire with a little bit of effort.  Start getting trades for under 10 TPU's and get your cost down to under $10/TPU and you really getting the great deals you and I have become accustomed to.


----------



## ampaholic

vckempson said:


> IYou and I get unusually good trades, because our TPU cost is *way* below most.  My trades usually cost me no more than $350 including exchange fee and TPU cost.
> 
> I was trying to price it based on $15/TPU (25 TPU trade), which should be easy for anyone to aquire with a little bit of effort.  Start getting trades for under 10 TPU's and get your cost down to under $10/TPU and you really getting the great deals you and I have become accustomed to.



Great trades can also be had in other systems - I just traded a week with $285 worth of MF for a week at Wyndham Beach Walk with VRI*ity. 

$89 exchange fee + $285 = $374 all in - not bad for a week in Waikiki's #2 rated timeshare (after Hilton).

The good trades are out there - keep looking.


----------



## MichaelColey

ampaholic said:


> Great trades can also be had in other systems - I just traded a week with $285 worth of MF for a week at Wyndham Beach Walk with VRI*ity.
> 
> $89 exchange fee + $285 = $374 all in - not bad for a week in Waikiki's #2 rated timeshare (after Hilton).


I guess I got the royal screw from RCI.  The week I have booked in a 2BR at Hilton Hawaiian Village Lagoon Tower cost me $519 (33 TPU at $10/each plus $189 exchange fee).


----------



## Carolinian

As I said earlier, for those who are overpointed in the new scheme, it makes good sense to stay with RCI.  You got the gold mine while others got the shaft.

As to the ''majority'', I note that a poll on another site showed an almost even split between those who had equal or better trading power from Points Lite and those who had lost trading power.  Given that timeshare boards are dominated by those with better weeks, and few of us here own blue weeks (I once did but that was many years ago), and those off season weeks got shafted more than most, I think it is clear that a majority is worse off under Points Lite.  The stories I heard from resort managers of the deluge of off season owners who exchanged calling in and wanting to bail out after Points Lite was announced indicates there was a lot of dissatisfaction at that level.

As to changing ownerships, given the fickleness of RCI in recent years, it is only the gamblers who should roll those dice.  It may work for a while, but it will likely come up snake eyes at some point, and that might be sooner than you think.  Of course, as I have predicted before, I think the next big fruit basket turnover in RCI's exchange system will come when they merge Points and Points Lite.  It just does not make sense to run two paralell points systems.  I suspect we are likely 2 - 5 years from that happening.

It is better to change exchange companies, use where you own, or just get out of timesharing and rent from either owners or even the Evil Empire itself. While I have no further use for RCI as an exchange company, I do find them useful to rent through from time to time.  YMMV.




vckempson said:


> Count me as a HAPPY, HAPPY customer of RCI these days.  Great vacations, great costs, great availalbility, and clear disclosure to know what's worth doing or not doing.
> 
> If it's not working out like that for someone, they should vote with their dollars and either leave RCI or change what they own.  For the majority, though, the advent of TPU's opened up a whole new world where we all have a shot the great trades only dreamed of five years ago... and at a fraction of the cost from years gone by if you do a little work.
> 
> Hurah!
> 
> Change is hated by many, but cherished by those who look to take advantage of it.   Mix up your portfolio if needed and get your TPU costs down below $15.  You'll stop crying the blues and start singing the praises of RCI and what all you can exchange into.  Come on folks, it's hard to be unhappy with $500 to $600 a week in a nice condo vacation home.
> 
> To the OP, unless you are specifically looking to trade *back in*  to your deposited week, it's completely irrelevant how much that trade would cost.  Remember, your deposit can ONLY go up in value (not will but can) and the exchange rate is likely to only come down.  It's not a static equation and the real outcome isn't known until later.  Thank goodness our deposits don't get reduced when the ultimate exchange rate ends up bringing LESS than your deposit value.


----------



## vckempson

ampaholic said:


> Great trades can also be had in other systems - I just traded a week with $285 worth of MF for a week at Wyndham Beach Walk with VRI*ity.
> 
> $89 exchange fee + $285 = $374 all in - not bad for a week in Waikiki's #2 rated timeshare (after Hilton).
> 
> The good trades are out there - keep looking.



That's a heck of a trade.  Keep it up.  What week/resort were you able to pull that off with?


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> As to the ''majority'', I note that a poll on another site showed an almost even split between those who had equal or better trading power from Points Lite and those who had lost trading power. Given that timeshare boards are dominated by those with better weeks, and few of us here own blue weeks (I once did but that was many years ago), and those off season weeks got shafted more than most, I think it is clear that a majority is worse off under Points Lite. The stories I heard from resort managers of the deluge of off season owners who exchanged calling in and wanting to bail out after Points Lite was announced indicates there was a lot of dissatisfaction at that level.


For people who own blue weeks, they're *already* screwed.  RCI just made it transparent.


----------



## vckempson

MichaelColey said:


> For people who own blue weeks, they're *already* screwed.  RCI just made it transparent.



Trying to save money by buying a blue week reminds me of a quote.

“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.” 
― John Ruskin


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


> For people who own blue weeks, they're *already* screwed.  RCI just made it transparent.



Well, no, they weren't.  Not when there was a 45 day window.  Points Lite was the final demise of the 45 day window.  But they are now, without a doubt.

Chrystal deHahn, RCI's founder recognized the importance of the exclusivity principle to the sustainability of the ownership / exchange model of timesharing.  When Cendent took over, they threw that away with their rental programs to the general public.  Mrs. deHahn also recognized that sustainability was important to the members and resort affiliates as well as the exchange company, and the 45 day window was an important part of that.  RCI gave developers promotional materails that pushed the 45 day window, and of course the sales weasels promoted it.  RCI's steady whittling away at the 45 day window since Cendent took over has been kicking the props out from under their resort affiliates.

When I owned a blue week it was primarily to trade for blue times when I wanted to go to Europe and did not want to waste using my summer holiday beach week for a blue trade.  Through TUG, I found out that SA weeks were a cheaper option to do that, and ditched the blue week (sold it for a couple hundred dollars).  But as an HOA officer, I learned how important the 45 day window was to blue week owners who exchanged through RCI,and thus important to the financial health of the HOA.

But that is a different issue and off topic from the point raised by the OP, which is RCI's shell game of different valuations for weeks at the same point iin time depending on whether it is a deposit or an exchange.  They don't do that in regular Points, and it is just a scam to do it in Points Lite.

Oh, and the RCI cheerleading squad is slipping.  140+ posts before you show up?


----------



## ampaholic

Carolinian said:


> Well, no, they weren't.  Not when there was a 45 day window.  Points Lite was the final demise of the 45 day window.  But they are now, without a doubt.
> 
> Chrystal deHahn, RCI's founder recognized the importance of the exclusivity principle to the sustainability of the ownership / exchange model of timesharing.  When Cendent took over, they threw that away with their rental programs to the general public.  Mrs. deHahn also recognized that sustainability was important to the members and resort affiliates as well as the exchange company, and the 45 day window was an important part of that.  RCI gave developers promotional materails that pushed the 45 day window, and of course the sales weasels promoted it.  RCI's steady whittling away at the 45 day window since Cendent took over has been kicking the props out from under their resort affiliates.
> 
> When I owned a blue week it was primarily to trade for blue times when I wanted to go to Europe and did not want to waste using my summer holiday beach week for a blue trade.  Through TUG, I found out that SA weeks were a cheaper option to do that, and ditched the blue week (sold it for a couple hundred dollars).  But as an HOA officer, I learned how important the 45 day window was to blue week owners who exchanged through RCI,and thus important to the financial health of the HOA.
> 
> But that is a different issue and off topic from the point raised by the OP, which is RCI's shell game of different valuations for weeks at the same point iin time depending on whether it is a deposit or an exchange.  They don't do that in regular Points, and it is just a scam to do it in Points Lite.
> 
> Oh, and the RCI cheerleading squad is slipping.  140+ posts before you show up?



Well the name Chrystal deHahn (sic) finally showed up - Oh, for the good old days. 

Can we hire her back to run our Viking Ship Vacation Club???? :hysterical: :rofl: :hysterical:


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> Well, no, they weren't. Not when there was a 45 day window. Points Lite was the final demise of the 45 day window. But they are now, without a doubt.


I continue to contend that Blue week owners were already screwed with or without RCI.  Sure, they could get 45 day reservations before (and they should still be able to get them at 30 days now -- just like with II).  But at virtually every resort, Blue week owners are paying the exact same MF as the owner of the Redest week.  If they're not already screwed, I don't know what else you would call it.

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



Carolinian said:


> Oh, and the RCI cheerleading squad is slipping. 140+ posts before you show up?


You must have missed my 9 earlier posts in this thread.


----------



## bogey21

vckempson said:


> “It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
> ― John Ruskin



Makes sense to me!

George


----------



## Carolinian

You miss the more important changes in last minute inventory - 1) That not all of it gets marked down in the new regime, 2) that much of it gets rented instead of put up for exchange in the 45 day window, and most importantly 3) RCI has put a lot of competition out there for those weeks that did not used to be there - the Points members and now any Points Lite member using a handful of points lite.  In the old days, someone would think long and hard about using a powerful week for a short notice exchange, so the blue week owners had a lot to pick from.  Now they don't.  Huge change.

As to MF, that is sometimes a matter of state law.  But it is a division of actual costs, not based on exchanging.  It costs the same to clean a blue week unit as it does a red week one, the same to insure it, the same for property taxes, the same to manage it, about the same for utilities (hear in winter, a/c in summer), etc.

Weeks in oversupply, whether it be because they are off season or becuase they are in overbuiilt areas, should not get the trading power of prime weeks.  One of the biggest frauds in the new RCI system is handing our trading power like candy in overbuilt areas, where they systematically give more trading power for deposits than they require for an exchange into the same week.  However, it was RCI over many years which created the dependence of HOA's on the 45 day window to keep blue week owners happy.  RCI produces the materials that hyped that model and provided them to developers.  It is just dirty pool for RCI to now pull that rug out from under HOA's.  They have suckerpunched their resort affiliates.

You are trying to get this thread OT, as the real point of the OP is RCI's fraudulent shortchanging of owners of prime weeks on trading power. You own in overbuilt, and often overpointed areas (I don't know all the details of exactly what you own) so you cheerlead for a process that systematically cheats owners of better weeks. Your sidekick also owns in overbuilt and overpointed areas.

The point about the blue weeks was that ''the majority'' is NOT better off in the Points Lite system, as blue week owners certainly are not, and it appears about half of better week owners are not, based on polls.





MichaelColey said:


> I continue to contend that Blue week owners were already screwed with or without RCI.  Sure, they could get 45 day reservations before (and they should still be able to get them at 30 days now -- just like with II).  But at virtually every resort, Blue week owners are paying the exact same MF as the owner of the Redest week.  If they're not already screwed, I don't know what else you would call it.
> 
> You can't make RCI out to be evil because they don't give a lot of trading power for Blue weeks.  That's the way it SHOULD be.
> 
> You must have missed my 9 earlier posts in this thread.


----------



## WinniWoman

MichaelColey said:


> For people who own blue weeks, they're *already* screwed.  RCI just made it transparent.



I would never buy a blue week (or any week for that matter anymore), but I do own floater weeks as part of my ownership (1 week red, 1 week floater each year-same maintenance fees). Most of the floaters are red (pink) and white, but there a just a few blue weeks thrown in the 20 year schedule. I have one coming up in a couple of years and I told my husband I look forward to using it at our home resort. Same with the white and pink weeks - use them now that the kid is grown. It will be nice and quiet and I will be able to get my reading done, some baking, actually watch a movie, etc. Total relaxation- hey - it's better than being on my hell-hole job schedule! the hell with RCI and TPU's!


----------



## vckempson

MichaelColey said:


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



+1.  Spot on.  

Of course it should be that way.  To argue that Blue weeks deserve better is just more of the "We're the 99%" crap.   It smacks of "income redistribution",  only in a timeshare wrapper.

I'm sure I'll take heat on this one.  Oh well.


----------



## Beefnot

Carolinian said:


> As to MF, that is sometimes a matter of state law.  But it is a division of actual costs, not based on exchanging.  It costs the same to clean a blue week unit as it does a red week one, the same to insure it, the same for property taxes, the same to manage it, about the same for utilities (hear in winter, a/c in summer), etc.



You may be right on state law, I dunno, but depending on how one views it, it does not cost the same to maintain a blue week as it does a red week.  There is a disproportionate amount of wear and tear and maintenance derived from units being used than unused.  If at a given resort, prime weeks are at 100% occupancy while blue weeks are at 40% occupancy, then the blue weeks may be subsidizing the maintenance of the red weeks.


----------



## Mel

The problem is in trying to justify the current exchange model based on resale prices.  People who get the best deal in terms of TPU get it because they own prime weeks.  The original purchasers of those weeks paid a premium to own those weeks.

As for the OPs contention regarding ingoing vs. outgoing TPU, that's part of the way the system is designed.  It is also how many points systems are designed.  As an example, if you own floating weeks and put them into a points system, they often credit you with the average value of your floating week - and then within a certain period, you can book any of the weeks you could normally book for the same number of points, even if it is listed for more.  For many of those owners, this is actually a better deal than when the resort chose which weeks were deposited, because the exchangers always lost out in those systems (the best weeks were reserved for owners planning to use their weeks).

When we deposit our weeks, RCI makes an offer we can accept or reject.  If we don't like RCI's offer, we can deposit our week elsewhere, or rent or use it ourselves.  If RCI was the only option, this might be considered an unfair trade practice, but we do have other options.   The current TPU system is set up like a currency, and there are 2 transaction for every deposit.  When you deposit, you are in essence selling your week to RCI for a certain number of credits.  Once RCI "owns" the week, they can sell it for whatever they want.

The system is transparent in that you know what TPU you are offered, and have a choice.  You then also know what you can book with your TPU.  What is not transparent is everybody else's transactions.  

Yes, it appears than some resort are "overpointed" but we have to ask why.  Carolinian would argue that RCI is in bed with the developers.  But RCI is a business, and they are not likely to do something that is against their own best interest.  RCI must be getting something in exchange for awarding these high TPU.  Many of these same resorts used to offer "bonus certificates" to their owners when they deposited their weeks - and in their sales presentations would imply that RCI was offering these bonus weeks, which indicated just how much RCI wanted their deposits.  The reality was that those bonus weeks represented developer inventory deposits.  Maybe the same thing is happening, but in a less transparent way.  Maybe those deposit points represent 50% more than the true value, because for every 2 deposits to RCI the developer gives RCI another week.

Whatever is happening, it really doesn't matter much.  We all have the choice to use RCI or not, and are given adequate information to make such a decision.  Our society has devolved to the point that everybody feels entitled to everything, and this is just another example.  People need to take responsibility for their own decisions - good and bad.


----------



## Carolinian

vckempson said:


> +1.  Spot on.
> 
> Of course it should be that way.  To argue that Blue weeks deserve better is just more of the "We're the 99%" crap.   It smacks of "income redistribution",  only in a timeshare wrapper.
> 
> I'm sure I'll take heat on this one.  Oh well.




Look at the big picture.  The issue of trading power is not really about the color of weeks.  It is about supply and demand.  The overbuilt areas, such as where you own, have the same supply / demand curve as blue weeks, as there are a glot of them in the system.  A fair and honest exchange system would give them similar values.

But again, you are gettin OT.  The issue in this thread is RCI assigning different values at the same point in time to the same week depending on whether it is a deposit or taken as an exchange, and that is simply a fraud.  They don't pull that fast one in regular RCI Points.


----------



## Margariet

Mel said:


> The problem is in trying to justify the current exchange model based on resale prices.  People who get the best deal in terms of TPU get it because they own prime weeks.  The original purchasers of those weeks paid a premium to own those weeks.
> 
> As for the OPs contention regarding ingoing vs. outgoing TPU, that's part of the way the system is designed.  It is also how many points systems are designed.  As an example, if you own floating weeks and put them into a points system, they often credit you with the average value of your floating week - and then within a certain period, you can book any of the weeks you could normally book for the same number of points, even if it is listed for more.  For many of those owners, this is actually a better deal than when the resort chose which weeks were deposited, because the exchangers always lost out in those systems (the best weeks were reserved for owners planning to use their weeks).
> 
> When we deposit our weeks, RCI makes an offer we can accept or reject.  If we don't like RCI's offer, we can deposit our week elsewhere, or rent or use it ourselves.  If RCI was the only option, this might be considered an unfair trade practice, but we do have other options.   The current TPU system is set up like a currency, and there are 2 transaction for every deposit.  When you deposit, you are in essence selling your week to RCI for a certain number of credits.  Once RCI "owns" the week, they can sell it for whatever they want.
> 
> The system is transparent in that you know what TPU you are offered, and have a choice.  You then also know what you can book with your TPU.  What is not transparent is everybody else's transactions.
> 
> Yes, it appears than some resort are "overpointed" but we have to ask why.  Carolinian would argue that RCI is in bed with the developers.  But RCI is a business, and they are not likely to do something that is against their own best interest.  RCI must be getting something in exchange for awarding these high TPU.  Many of these same resorts used to offer "bonus certificates" to their owners when they deposited their weeks - and in their sales presentations would imply that RCI was offering these bonus weeks, which indicated just how much RCI wanted their deposits.  The reality was that those bonus weeks represented developer inventory deposits.  Maybe the same thing is happening, but in a less transparent way.  Maybe those deposit points represent 50% more than the true value, because for every 2 deposits to RCI the developer gives RCI another week.
> 
> Whatever is happening, it really doesn't matter much.  We all have the choice to use RCI or not, and are given adequate information to make such a decision.  Our society has devolved to the point that everybody feels entitled to everything, and this is just another example.  People need to take responsibility for their own decisions - good and bad.



What a good, clear statement!


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> You are trying to get this thread OT, as the real point of the OP is RCI's fraudulent shortchanging of owners of prime weeks on trading power.





Carolinian said:


> But again, you are gettin OT.


So when we respond to your drivel, we're getting OT?


Carolinian said:


> The overbuilt areas, such as where you own, have the same supply / demand curve as blue weeks, as there are a glot of them in the system. A fair and honest exchange system would give them similar values.


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


----------



## Beefnot

What is OT?


----------



## vckempson

Beefnot said:


> What is OT?



I can only presume it's "overtime".


----------



## Karen G

Beefnot said:


> What is OT?



I think it is Off topic


----------



## SOS8260456

It means off topic.


----------



## vckempson

Thanks.  That makes more sense.


----------



## Beefnot

I was thinking it meant Over the Top.  Ok, now it all makes sense.  I agree with MichaelColey's last response re: OT.


----------



## Ridewithme38

But we've got to all admit, Caroline is fun, isn't she?


----------



## geekette

ride, you're new here.  

Not CaroLINE, but CaroLINIAN.  Male.  Possibly another Steve, I don't recall anymore.  Just glad he's back.  

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

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


----------



## timeos2

MichaelColey said:


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



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

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


----------



## vckempson

> ride, you're new here.
> 
> Not CaroLINE, but CaroLINIAN.  Male.  Possibly another Steve, I don't recall anymore.  Just glad he's back.




I think you missed the intent.  Ride is clearly aware of that already.


----------



## Bourne

geekette said:


> ride, you're new here.
> 
> 
> What I like most about Caro is that he has never flipflopped, never backpedalled on what he believes in...



unlike our esteemed friend from the waste gate las Vegas penthouse...


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## Carolinian

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

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

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



timeos2 said:


> Right on Michael! That has been my thought since the DeHann (sp?) years. There should NEVER have been what amounts to free upgrades to better (ie more desirable times even if there may be an excess in total availability) times. That RCI ever offered that was an unintended bonus.  The very fact that it was utilized by the retail sales weasels tells you that they knew it shouldn't exist but while it did they were going to use it to help market otherwise unsellable times!  Rather than make the time they had to sell more attractive by lower fees or off season amenities to make it desirable they instead charged full fees and wanted other, better resorts and locations to shoulder the burden.  And for RCI to eventually eat the dog weeks that couldn't be given away! Thus the door was opened to cheap rentals and we all know how that has corrupted the whole system. Now rentals are the key to RCI and exchange is a poor afterthought at best.
> 
> So while some want to blame RCI actions as the cause of the collapse of fair exchanges I see it as the 45 day window & free undeserved upgrades that eventually killed an otherwise good system.  Too late now to undo it so the exchange companies don't get my deposits. They can't rent what they don't have.


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


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


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



Carolinian said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


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


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


----------



## Beefnot

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


----------



## ronparise

MichaelColey said:


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



Oh Michael...dont confuse us with the facts


----------



## rickandcindy23

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Carolinian

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

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

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

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

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




MichaelColey said:


> It was you who brought blue weeks into the discussion.  Yet you blast me and others for bringing the thread off topic when we respond.  Whatever.
> 
> I've not once opposed full transparency.  I've only said that the transparency that they provide is better than what any other exchange company provides.  The end numbers (what you get for a deposit and what it takes for an exchange) is really all that matters.  More detail wouldn't hurt, but it really isn't necessary.
> 
> When I buy food at the grocery store, I can see the list of ingredients, the breakdown of carbs/fat/protein, and the total calories.  I don't need total transparency of exact portions of each ingredient.
> 
> Just like a recipe, exactly how RCI calculates demand and supply is a trade secret.  We can get a pretty good idea about how they calculate it, but I don't think they'll ever publicly disclose the entire calculation.  (And I doubt it's a static equation, either.  I'm sure they update it as they come up with other factors that affect supply and demand.


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


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



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

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


----------



## ampaholic

Carolinian said:


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



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

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

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

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


----------



## Beefnot

Carolinian said:


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



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

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


----------



## Beefnot

geekette said:


> What I like most about Caro is that he has never flipflopped, never backpedalled on what he believes in, and has on more than one occasion predicted the next step in RCI's greed.
> 
> Maybe I don't agree with Everything he says, but I do like to read his responses as much is right on with what I think about RCI, exchanging, etc.



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


----------



## wauhob3

eal said:


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



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


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


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


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

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


----------



## Beefnot

MichaelColey said:


> What taken together with the comments about trade secrets, it's a perfect analogy.  I can read the ingredients on a Coca Cola can and the calories and carbs, but they're not going to tell me (or their competitors) *exactly* how they created it.  RCI is the same way.  They give us the end result (TPUs for depositing and TPUs for exchange) but not how they got to it.  If there are inefficiencies between the two, *we* are the ones who benefit, *not* RCI, because we can *choose* to make transactions to take advantage of that inefficiency (either depositing something that you consider overpointed or exchanging for something you consider underpointed, or both).  We are not forced to make a transaction that doesn't benefit us (but RCI is, if we take advantage of an inefficiency).
> 
> If you'd rather than an analogy that includes exchanges, I'll give one (that I may have given here before -- I can't remember).  A couple months ago, my wife cleaned out a bunch of kids clothes that didn't fit any more and took them to a resale shop.  The resale shop goes through the clothes, decides what they would take and what they wouldn't, and what price they would sell it at.  If you would like to sell it to them, they'll give you 20% of that value in cash or 40% of the value in store credit.  We sold them everything they would take, and took store credit.  The store owner never told us how she determines what to take, how she prices it, or how she can justify just giving us a fraction of what she'll sell it for.  We didn't care about any of that, just what she was willing to give us and what we could get for it.



Preach, Mr. Lotto, preach.


----------



## vckempson

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

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

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

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


----------



## ronparise

vckempson said:


> In any market, it is* inefficiencies that create opportunities*.  Whether it's stocks, currencies, art, collectibles, commercial real estate, or timeshares, the greater the inefficiency, the greater the opportunity to take advantage of those inefficiencies.
> 
> A completely efficient market benefits the masses.  Tuggers don't exactly represent the masses. * Inefficiencies benefit those that are willing to educate themselves and understand the market dynamics surrounding those inefficiencies.  Tuggers fit that category.*
> 
> RCI currently has enough transparency to avoid bad choices and benefit from good ones.  It has just enough transparency to make informed decisions and just enough inefficiencies to creat great opportnuities and beneficial outcomes for us all.  All we have to do is do our homework and take the necessary steps to make it work in our favor.
> 
> To the OP, if the spread on TPU's doesn't benefit you, don't do it.  (though I'm not sure exactly how you've been injured)  When it does, jump on it.  Carolinian is absolutely correct, I don't want full transparency if that ends the inefficiencies, and neither really should any tuggers.  Why would we want to cook the goose that lays the golden eggs.  Right now is the best time ever to squeeze a lot from a little with timeshares thru RCI.   And that you can take to the bank.




Oh My!

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

Im so confused


----------



## vckempson

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

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


----------



## VacationForever

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


----------



## MichaelColey

vckempson said:


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


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


----------



## Carolinian

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

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

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

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



ampaholic said:


> I don't see why you are yipping about RCI trying to get as close to 100% utilization as they can.
> 
> It seems like you think they are some kind of utility that has to be accountable to the public in general - they are not - they are a for profit business and if what they are "doing" is not illegal, it is between them and their shareholders and customers.
> 
> Would you complain if Walmart lowered a price on closeout to *less* than what the item "cost" them? Well I got news for you - they do it all the time. Walmart also jacks up the price on some items so they can make a profit and guess what - *they* get to decide which items.
> 
> Get over this notion that RCI should do what *you* consider *fair* - they are only required to do what is _*legal*_.


----------



## Carolinian

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

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

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




Beefnot said:


> RCI's system is very transparent.  They tell you the TPUs of a deposit and the TPUs of an exchange for a given week. That is transparent.  The differential between the two, or the over-/under- pointing of resorts and locations for that matter, are irrelevant.
> 
> What exactly are you clamoring for? What specifically do you want to see from RCI?  Do you want them to explain the point disparities between weeks and resorts? Will that make you happy? What if you don't like the answer? Do you then embark on a new tirade?


----------



## Carolinian

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



vckempson said:


> I might add that sooner or later, the market reduces or eliminates known inefficiencies.  That happened with Blue weeks, South African timeshares, Wyndhams 28k point deposits for RCI weeks, and countless others.  As more and more capitalize on *known* inefficiencies, it clears them out.  That's why so many are guarded about their very best strategies.  Eventually, though, enough will know them and it will disappear, just like it always has.
> 
> That's why some see it as pure folly to buy something for the purpose of trading.  Au contraire.  There will almost *ALWAYS* be inefficiencies.  Here at TUG, we know better than the most how to prick and poke and prod the system to find them.   You just have to be flexible enough and ready to change strategies when necessary.


----------



## Carolinian

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




MichaelColey said:


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


----------



## e.bram

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


----------



## Beefnot

e.bram said:


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



With RCI, you know before you deposit what TPUs you will be given. It is not a blind deposit.


----------



## ampaholic

Carolinian said:


> Do you even understand the issue here?  There is nothing at all wrong with reducing the trading value at a later time when supply and demand factors have changed.  I have always supported that, for years, on these boards.  Supply and demand are constantly changing.
> 
> Giving a different value *AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME* to the very same week, depending on whether it is a deposit or taken for exchange is the issue.
> 
> You also do not seem to understand consumer protection laws, which exist in most states with very similar language.  As an example, North Carolina's provides that ''*unfair* or deceptive acts or practices in or effecting commerce are *unlawful*''.  Get that?  unfair = illegal.  RCI is NOT exempt from consumer protection laws.  In fact, it was the New Jersey consumer protection law that they were sued under in the class action (the one where the lawyers took a million dollar payout for themselves to stab their clients in the back).  What matters of course, is what the court determines to be fair or unfair.
> 
> Walmart is a retail business not an exchange company, which is not at all applicable to this situation.



Pomposity does not make it so .... if RCI wants to offer differing exchange amounts (TPU's) it matters *NOT AT ALL* if they do it before *YOU* exchange or after *YOU* exchange or at the same time *YOU* exchange. 

And do you really think "unfair" is a legal term? Next you will be trying to defend the legal term "bogus" or that great and widespread bastion of legal jargon ... "spurious"

Sheesh, give me a break - if you have no argument please at least don't start your lame reply with "you don't understand ... "


----------



## ampaholic

"Consumer protection consists of laws and organizations designed to ensure the rights of consumers as well as fair trade competition and the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. The laws are designed to prevent businesses that engage in fraud or *specified unfair practices* from gaining an advantage over competitors and may provide additional protection for the weak and those unable to take care of themselves." 

You will notice the "unfair" practices are *SPECIFIED * ... it is not the "unfair" that makes something illegal it is the "specified".

And Carolinian does not get to do the specifying - simple really.


----------



## Carolinian

Beefnot said:


> With RCI, you know before you deposit what TPUs you will be given. It is not a blind deposit.



. . . but it is blind as heck as to what you will get in return if you use a search, and the best weeks usually require searchs.  You only look at one side of the equation.


----------



## Beefnot

Carolinian said:


> . . . but it is blind as heck as to what you will get in return if you use a search, and the best weeks usually require searchs.  You only look at one side of the equation.



That is no different than with any other exchange company.


----------



## Carolinian

Don't know where you pulled this quote from, as you don't reference it.  Probably somewhere inherently unreliable like Wikipedia.  Whoever wrote it sound like they have never pulled down a statute book and actually read one of these laws.

I suggest you educate yourself by reading the actual statutes.  Most, possibly all do NOT ''specify'' unfair practices.  They just use the word ''unfair'' which is very broad.  That's what the New Jersey law, that RCI was sued under, does, and that is what the North Carolina law does.  Fraud has specific elements that have to be proven, but the statutes give the court broad discretion to determine what is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''.  And as I have said before, it is up to the court, not RCI or RCI's cheerleading squad, to determine what is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''.

As to one of RCI's major transgressions, its rentals to the general public, I think amendment of some other state statutes would be in order.  The laws on exchange company disclosures that have to be signed by those who purchase from developers were written in the era when exchange companies only provided exchanges.  Rewriting these laws to require exchange companies to make very detailed disclosure of their rental to the public activities would probably sink lots of developer sales and send developers either to jerk RCI's chain very very hard to stop this practice, or to jump to II.
Full disclosure would shine a light somewhere that buyers need to take a look at and would help break up the exchange company malpractice of renting exchange deposits to the general public.




ampaholic said:


> "Consumer protection consists of laws and organizations designed to ensure the rights of consumers as well as fair trade competition and the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. The laws are designed to prevent businesses that engage in fraud or *specified unfair practices* from gaining an advantage over competitors and may provide additional protection for the weak and those unable to take care of themselves."
> 
> You will notice the "unfair" practices are *SPECIFIED * ... it is not the "unfair" that makes something illegal it is the "specified".
> 
> And Carolinian does not get to do the specifying - simple really.


----------



## Beefnot

I believe you are correct about unfair practices not needing to have been previously specified.  I also edited your quote for completeness.



Carolinian said:


> I suggest you educate yourself by reading the actual statutes.  Most, possibly all do NOT ''specify'' unfair practices.  They just use the word ''unfair'' which is very broad.  That's what the New Jersey law, that RCI was sued under, does, and that is what the North Carolina law does.  Fraud has specific elements that have to be proven, but the statutes give the court broad discretion to determine what is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''.  And as I have said before, it is up to the court, not RCI or RCI's cheerleading squad _or the relentlessly crazed RCI haters like myself_, to determine what is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''


----------



## ronparise

Back to our original post

The op deposited a week with RCI and received 26 tpu for that week. Presumably sometime later he will use those tpu to resereve a week or two or three 

Presumably he has taken a look at what weeks are available and what 26 tpu would buy and went forward with that deposit either because of what he can get for it (or in spite of it)

Thats the ops transaction with RCI, I dont see anything else he needs to be concerned with. He decided it was in his best interest to go forward with the deposit

The fact that RCI is requiring 47 tpu of someone else, to reserve that deposited week is of no concern to the op...Thats another transaction that he has no part in. If anyone is getting screwed by RCI its the guy that pays 47 tpu, not the op

I think we need to remember that the weeks we deposit to RCI are weeks we dont want or cant use ie trash...That we get anything for them seems to be a plus to me...

One mans trash, is another mans treasure. and RCI brings the two together...I think thats a good thing


----------



## bnoble

> You just have to be flexible enough and ready to change strategies when necessary.


This, exactly.  It's also a good reason to take a portfolio approach to your ownerships.  That's hard to do unless you can commit to a non-trivial amount of vacation each year, but if you can, it can be very useful.

For example, just within RCI, I can use "regular Weeks", or the Wyndham portal.  Regular Weeks provides better value for some exchanges, the Wyndham portal better value for others.  But, by working both sides, I can have the best of both worlds and obtain vacations I want at a great price.  

It's very much like diversifying your investments.


----------



## Tia

ronparise said:


> Back to our original post
> 
> The op deposited a week with RCI and received 26 tpu for that week. Presumably sometime later he will use those tpu to resereve a week or two or three
> 
> Presumably he has taken a look at what weeks are available and what 26 tpu would buy and went forward with that deposit either because of what he can get for it (or in spite of it)
> 
> Thats the ops transaction with RCI, I dont see anything else he needs to be concerned with. He decided it was in his best interest to go forward with the deposit
> 
> The fact that RCI is requiring 47 tpu of someone else, to reserve that deposited week is of no concern to the op...Thats another transaction that he has no part in. If anyone is getting screwed by RCI its the guy that pays 47 tpu, not the op
> 
> I think we need to remember that the weeks we deposit to RCI are weeks we dont want or cant use ie trash...That we get anything for them seems to be a plus to me...
> 
> One mans trash, is another mans treasure. and RCI brings the two together...I think thats a good thing




What if the week just won't work d/t schedules so you deposit, no trash there.
Haven't I read that RCI may give you 26 TPU's for a deposit in resort A, but then requires that 47 to trade back into your same season at resort A? 

There used to supposedly be a home resort preference right?


----------



## bnoble

> What if the week just won't work d/t schedules


Then you have to decide which of many options provides you the best value for your owned time.  Depositing with RCI is only one of them; a smart consumer will ask whether any of others---renting out, depositing with an independent, or private exchange---would be better.


----------



## ampaholic

ronparise said:


> Back to our original post
> 
> The op deposited a week with RCI and received 26 tpu for that week. Presumably sometime later he will use those tpu to resereve a week or two or three
> 
> Presumably he has taken a look at what weeks are available and what 26 tpu would buy and went forward with that deposit either because of what he can get for it (or in spite of it)
> 
> Thats the ops transaction with RCI, I dont see anything else he needs to be concerned with. He decided it was in his best interest to go forward with the deposit
> 
> The fact that RCI is requiring 47 tpu of someone else, to reserve that deposited week is of no concern to the op...Thats another transaction that he has no part in. If anyone is getting screwed by RCI its the guy that pays 47 tpu, not the op
> 
> I think we need to remember that the weeks we deposit to RCI are weeks we dont want or cant use ie trash...That we get anything for them seems to be a plus to me...
> 
> One mans trash, is another mans treasure. and RCI brings the two together...I think thats a good thing



Wow Ron, you make it sound like RCI is just doing "business" (buy low - sell high) not some nefarious and spurious criminal activity aimed at cheating Carolinian out of his rightful inheritance of TPU's.

That's too simple of an explanation - it makes me feel all "Occam's razor" ish. :hysterical: :rofl: :hysterical:


----------



## Tia

I just asked as have been either using ours or renting it out. I dropped RCI years ago as  saw it as a waste of $ personally. 



bnoble said:


> Then you have to decide which of many options provides you the best value for your owned time.  Depositing with RCI is only one of them; a smart consumer will ask whether any of others---renting out, depositing with an independent, or private exchange---would be better.


----------



## ampaholic

Carolinian said:


> Don't know where you pulled this quote from, as you don't reference it.  Probably somewhere inherently unreliable like Wikipedia.  Whoever wrote it sound like they have never pulled down a statute book and actually read one of these laws.
> 
> I suggest you educate yourself by reading the actual statutes.  Most, possibly all do NOT ''specify'' unfair practices.  They just use the word ''unfair'' which is very broad.  That's what the New Jersey law, that RCI was sued under, does, and that is what the North Carolina law does.  Fraud has specific elements that have to be proven, but the statutes give the court broad discretion to determine what is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''.  And as I have said before, it is up to the court, not RCI or RCI's cheerleading squad, to determine what is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''.
> 
> As to one of RCI's major transgressions, its rentals to the general public, I think amendment of some other state statutes would be in order.  The laws on exchange company disclosures that have to be signed by those who purchase from developers were written in the era when exchange companies only provided exchanges.  Rewriting these laws to require exchange companies to make very detailed disclosure of their rental to the public activities would probably sink lots of developer sales and send developers either to jerk RCI's chain very very hard to stop this practice, or to jump to II.
> Full disclosure would shine a light somewhere that buyers need to take a look at and would help break up the exchange company malpractice of renting exchange deposits to the general public.



More pomposity ... suggesting I educate myself, well if it makes me as smart and pompous as you - no thanks.

Shame on you, trying to attach you own opinion about your missing TPU inheritance to the coat-tails of consumer protection laws.

You are correct in that *only* a court can decide if an action violates a consumer protection law - just as *only* a court can decide what is "murder" and what is "justifiable homicide".

You are wrong to coat-tail onto that *your* argument that when RCI does something *you* don't like it is a violation of consumer protection laws - since *you* are most certainly *not* a court.

This constant *speaking for the court* on your part makes me wonder just what your job is?


----------



## Beefnot

ampaholic said:


> Wow Ron, you make it sound like RCI is just doing "business" (buy low - sell high) not some nefarious and spurious criminal activity aimed at cheating Carolinian out of his rightful inheritance of TPU's.
> 
> That's too simple of an explanation - it makes me feel all "Occam's razor" ish. :hysterical: :rofl: :hysterical:



Oh snap, pulled out Occam's razor, nice.


----------



## ronparise

Tia said:


> What if the week just won't work d/t schedules so you deposit, no trash there.
> Haven't I read that RCI may give you 26 TPU's for a deposit in resort A, but then requires that 47 to trade back into your same season at resort A?
> 
> There used to supposedly be a home resort preference right?



It may not be trash, and perhaps I went overboard in characterizing it in that way...but it certainly is something you cant use.  In my house for things other than timeshares, that means a trip to Goodwill and when I go to Goodwill I dont get anything in return. With timeshares and rci I at least get something back

I dont know about home resort priority but I dont think I get that with any of my timeshares. The resorts where I own fixed weeks have an in-house exchange program...no need to bother with rci at all


----------



## ronparise

ampaholic said:


> Wow Ron, you make it sound like RCI is just doing "business" (buy low - sell high) not some nefarious and spurious criminal activity aimed at cheating Carolinian out of his rightful inheritance of TPU's.
> 
> That's too simple of an explanation - it makes me feel all "Occam's razor" ish. :hysterical: :rofl: :hysterical:



I learned my logic from the Jesuits (if a=b and if b=c than a=c) and I also learned to recognize a "non sequetor"  when I see one, from them as well

but I learned what "Occam's razor" is from you

Thanks


----------



## ronparise

I gotta get back to work.....but this is so much fun


----------



## e.bram

A good analogy to RCI is Bernie Madoff. Some make out , some don't.


----------



## MichaelColey

I'm just surprised that Godwin's law hasn't come into play.


----------



## Beefnot

MichaelColey said:


> I'm just surprised that Godwin's law hasn't come into play.



I just learned a new law.  A funny law, but you're right, I'm surprised too.


----------



## ampaholic

Well, hummm -- Carolinian does live in Europe, by his own admission hummm ....


----------



## blueparrot

WOW!!!!  That simply does not pass the smell test.  How much more of this is going on????




gnipgnop said:


> One week ago I deposited my Waterside by Spinnaker in Hilton Head, SC, 3 BR-3BA, Week 12 (spring break) into RCI.  I received 26 TPU's for this deposit.  Today I went looking on line and saw my week, Waterside by Spinnaker in Hilton Head, SC, 3BR-3BA, Week 12 (spring break) available to members for 47 TPU's.  I couldn't believe it!  I called and was told by a Guide, Connie, that there was nothing that could be done to change TPU's because they were set according to supply and demand blah, blah blah.
> then in the next breath she tells me that the demand is higher than the supply in HHI at that time of year.  WHAT!!
> 
> So I asked, keeping my cool, to speak to a Supervisor.  James (the supervisor) came on the line and told me basicly the same thing.  I told him I felt this was so unfair, giving me 26 TPU's and RCI asking 47.  That's a 21 TPU difference!  I paid $$$ for the week, pay maintenance fees yearly, paid for membership into RCI since 1994,....isn't there something you can do for a loyal member??  He said distinctly "NO".  So I told him that II was now accepting Spinnaker Resorts into their membership and maybe next year I will give the week to them.  He told me and I quote:  "if you feel that is something you want to do then do it."  He also told me that people are leaving II and coming back to RCI because II has too many problems.  I think he's full of crap.   How can you treat customers like this??   He said there was no way they will change the TPU's  once they are in your account.  I asked him why couldn't the tech. dept. make the change if the order came from a supervisor.  Got no where.  I am so pissed at RCI right now I could "spit".  Sorry to go on like this but I had to get it off my chest.


----------



## vckempson

Beefnot said:


> Oh snap, pulled out Occam's razor, nice.



Let's talk about Occam's razor for a minute in regard to the OP's situation.  Her 26 TPU deposit is consistent with an *"Averaged"* calculation for the deposit.  I checked the deposit calculator and for her resort, each week in March get's mid 20's.  April continues a little higher, and May as well.  It continues this way into the summer.

A resort can enter into an agreement with RCI to provide just such an averaged calculation.  We know that because it's in the RCI user's agreement.  Now mind you, that's not RCI's election, but the resort's.  Given the wide disparity between the deposit and exchange cost, this is the simplest explanation of the difference.  It does not require postulating about multiple unknown inputs; the very essence of Occam's Razor.  

Interestingly, if that's true, then we are all blaming the wrong party for the disparity.


----------



## bnoble

Don't be silly, Cullen.  Everyone knows that it's always RCI's fault, no matter what.  Over-averaging, rentals to non-owners, the Greek debt crisis, and so on.


----------



## Beefnot

vckempson said:


> Let's talk about Occam's razor for a minute in regard to the OP's situation.  Her 26 TPU deposit is consistent with an *"Averaged"* calculation for the deposit.  I checked the deposit calculator and for her resort, each week in get's upper mid 20's.  April continues a little higher, and May as well.  It continues this way into the summer.
> 
> A resort can enter into an agreement with RCI to provide just such an averaged caluculation.  We know that because it's in the RCI user's agreement.  Now mind you, that's not RCI's election, but the resort's.  Given the wide disparity between the deposit and exchange cost, this is the simplest explanation of the difference.  It does not require postulating about multiple unknown inputs; the very essence of Occam's Razor.
> 
> Interestingly, if that's true, then we are all blaming for wrong party for the disparity.



Nice. How does one know which resorts have entered into an average calculation agreement?  What would be the resorts' rationale for doing so!


----------



## vckempson

Beefnot said:


> Nice. How does one know which resorts have entered into an average calculation agreement?  What would be the resorts' rationale for doing so!



I'm not sure you'd know unless you asked, and I'm not sure who you'd talk to who would really know.

Anyway, there's a couple reasons, but they mostly apply to resorts with floating weeks.  Anecdotal evidence also suggests that it may happen mostly with owner operated resorts.

With no incentive to take the best weeks for deposit, you get more of them available for owners to use.  Thus, there's less fighting for those primo weeks.  With averaging, less people will get shafted with a bad value on a less desireable week.  I believe averaging applies to a full season, though I'm not sure what a "season" consists of.  My guess is that most of these arrangements probably happened before the days of TPU's.  At that time, it was pretty hard to compare the trade value of one week vs another.  The averaging may have been attractive, so as to take the guesswork out of selecting a good week to deposit.


----------



## tschwa2

I think they can only do the "averaging" with floating weeks not with fixed weeks.  Often the averaging occurs when the resort bulk deposits, the owner either gets a generic "bulk week deposit" or gets a specific deposit but the valuation is based on the average deposit by the resort not the specific week.  In these cases the tpu calculator should be set up to show the average.

Shoulder and high season Hilton Head weeks have been valued much lower (5-10  points or more) than equivalent size and season in Myrtle Beach.  It also definately has a higher skim/sell/buy ratio than Myrtle beach since RCI went tpu's.  This summer the tpu's for deposit were slightly higher than the previous years but the cost to exchange back in increased even more.  It sucks for Hilton Head owners but at least they know it going in and can choose not to deposit.  I recently purchased a HHI week but I know upfront that unless things change, RCI is not a good option for the week.


----------



## ampaholic

This averaging idea makes sense: at the Hilton Grand Vacations Club at Waikoloa Beach (#8599) a week 41 is 43 TPU while a week 43 is 27 TPU both regular 2 bedrooms.

Interestingly Hilton considers week 43 Platinum and 41 just Gold - the opposite valuation from RCI.

So we have evidence RCI doesn't follow the resorts idea of "value".

The OP deposited a week 12 - or so he/she thought -- perhaps Spinnaker actually sent in a week 10 or a week 14?


----------



## gnipgnop

"Quote"  The OP deposited a week 12 - or so he/she thought -- perhaps Spinnaker actually sent in a week 10 or a week 14?

But how could Spinnaker do that??  send in a different week)  I saw the week listed for exchange on the RCI board as *week 12 - 3 BR  *-  47 TUP's  Waterside by Spinnaker on HHI.


----------



## Beefnot

gnipgnop said:


> "Quote"  The OP deposited a week 12 - or so he/she thought -- perhaps Spinnaker actually sent in a week 10 or a week 14?
> 
> But how could Spinnaker do that??  send in a different week)  I saw the week listed for exchange on the RCI board as *week 12 - 3 BR  *-  47 TUP's  Waterside by Spinnaker on HHI.



Spinnaker may well have sent in the same week you thought you were depositing, week 12.  But if the speculation that some resorts have an averaging "feature" to weeks deposited with exchange companies is true, then perhaps you received an average value for some range of weeks while RCI is charging for the specific value it had assigned for Week 12.

Or maybe Spinnaker did assign a different week to RCI that was lower in value, and the week 12 you saw on RCI wasn't actually your week you'd deposited.  

Beats me, I dunno, I am not with RCI.  Plus I still harbor residual hatred of RCI because Carolinian has drummed it in my head that they are Nazis.  D'oh!  That damned Godwin was right....


----------



## ronparise

Beefnot said:


> Spinnaker may well have sent in the same week you thought you were depositing, week 12.  But if the speculation that some resorts have an averaging "feature" to weeks deposited with exchange companies is true, then perhaps you received an average value for some range of weeks while RCI is charging for the specific value it had assigned for Week 12.
> 
> Or maybe Spinnaker did assign a different week to RCI that was lower in value, and the week 12 you saw on RCI wasn't actually your week you'd deposited.
> 
> Beats me, I dunno, I am not with RCI.  Plus I still harbor residual hatred of RCI because Carolinian has drummed it in my head that they are Nazis.  D'oh!  That damned Godwin was right....



You beat me to it..I was waiting for an opportunity to invoke Godwins law


----------



## Carolinian

e.bram said:


> A good analogy to RCI is Bernie Madoff. Some make out , some don't.



You have hit the nail on the head.  As I have posted before, it makes sense for those overpointed to continue to use RCI. but for those underpointed to find another exchange platform or group of exchange platforms.  Of course, we have a small but highly vocal group of the overpointed here who like to beat their chest about it and pay homage to their benefactor, RCI.


----------



## Margariet

*Why don't you start a timeshare exchange company?*



Carolinian said:


> You have hit the nail on the head.  As I have posted before, it makes sense for those overpointed to continue to use RCI. but for those underpointed to find another exchange platform or group of exchange platforms.  Of course, we have a small but highly vocal group of the overpointed here who like to beat their chest about it and pay homage to their benefactor, RCI.



@Carolinian: Why don't you start a timeshare exchange company which works according to your own terms and conditions? I am serious because now you waste a lot of negative energy. RCI won't change and the members of RCI neither. Be constructive and build a better company. You might ask others to join you and help you out.

My husband and I are with RCI because we own timeshare and we travel to various locations in the world. RCI is for us the best choice because they have the largest inventory. It's not that we love RCI since the company and the system have many shortcomings but for now it's the best option.


----------



## ronparise

Carolinian said:


> You have hit the nail on the head.  As I have posted before, it makes sense for those overpointed to continue to use RCI. but for those underpointed to find another exchange platform or group of exchange platforms.  Of course, we have a small but highly vocal group of the overpointed here who like to beat their chest about it and pay homage to their benefactor, RCI.




I dont pay homage, and I havent noticed anyone else that does either

No one disagrees with your assessment. There are overbuilt areas and over pointed resorts and there are areas where the number of timeshare units is far less than demand and resorts where you would expect a better points allocation than you get for a deposit and there are situations like the ops where RCI charges a lot more for a deposited week than they gave the person that made the deposit....And there is evidence that the biggest user of RCI is RCI themselves; their rental department. They just use us to get free inventory that they can rent.

None of this stuff is new. We are quite aware of whats going on. I think we are just tired of your constant rant on the subject


We (like you)  have noticed certain inefficiencies in the system and choose to "play" it to our advantage rather than complain about something we cant change


----------



## rickandcindy23

Sheraton Broadway Plantation deposits for owners, and you get just an averaged amount, which is a low number.  This is the reason not to use RCI and use II instead.


----------



## Tia

There has been no constant rant that I recall seeing and it imho needs to be in recent posts for new TUG readers, not hidden in the archives  more or less protecting the guilty. :ignore: 



ronparise said:


> I dont pay homage, and I havent noticed anyone else that does either
> 
> No one disagrees with your assessment. There are overbuilt areas and over pointed resorts and there are areas where the number of timeshare units is far less than demand and resorts where you would expect a better points allocation than you get for a deposit and there are situations like the ops where RCI charges a lot more for a deposited week than they gave the person that made the deposit....And there is evidence that the biggest user of RCI is RCI themselves; their rental department. They just use us to get free inventory that they can rent.
> 
> None of this stuff is new. We are quite aware of whats going on. I think we are just tired of your constant rant on the subject
> 
> 
> We (like you)  have noticed certain inefficiencies in the system and choose to "play" it to our advantage rather than complain about something we cant change


----------



## vckempson

Tia said:


> There has been no constant rant that I recall seeing and it imho needs to be in recent posts for new TUG readers, not hidden in the archives  more or less protecting the guilty. :ignore:



You and Carolinian decided to take all your marbles and go home.  "No Mas, No Mas."  The rest of us have figured out how to make the best of the system.  

For any who haven't been a part of RCI since the advent of "Points Light" or "TPU's",  what useful information on RCI weeks could you possibly provide?  Valuable information on RCI weeks will come from those who have figured out a way to exploit the current system, not someone who gave up years ago.  What information of Carolinian's *needs* to be in any recent posts that's of help to *anyone* when it concerns RCI weeks?


----------



## mtforeman

*TPU's offered changes*

Strangely enough, we've found that it is best (for our timeshare) to _wait_ to deposit.  For example, last year's deposit, if we sent it in a year early, would have only given us 22-24 TPU per side.  However, when we waited until there was a 10% drop in TPU value, the TPU offered went up to 32 per side.

So, we ended up with 29 per side when we deposited--by waiting.

I don't know why it works this way, but I heard that the TPU's offered are based on the immediate value of the week (as of the date of deposit) but that the value of the week may rise or fall over time.

I still don't fully understand, as there are currently the same units from my resort that are being offered for exchange at a couple TPU's higher than what I'm being offered for next year, for the week following the 4th of July while ours is a 4th of July week (for which they have no deposits).

It doesn't matter for us, since we're going to our resort next year and we still have 54 TPU's from our last deposit that we need to use (since we got Massanutten at the spring sale for 5TPU's for Woodstone 2br week in June).  

I think the key is always to never count on exchange companies...they can all change whatever they do at a moment's notice.  Buy the timeshare for itself and hopefully one you can rent for MF if you can't use it.


----------



## RachelR

One question please.  After reading this thread, I am interested to know if the term 'points light', is interchangeable with TPU's, or id it is referring to something else altogether.

TIA.


----------



## Carolinian

Margariet said:


> @Carolinian: Why don't you start a timeshare exchange company which works according to your own terms and conditions? I am serious because now you waste a lot of negative energy. RCI won't change and the members of RCI neither. Be constructive and build a better company. You might ask others to join you and help you out.
> 
> My husband and I are with RCI because we own timeshare and we travel to various locations in the world. RCI is for us the best choice because they have the largest inventory. It's not that we love RCI since the company and the system have many shortcomings but for now it's the best option.



As an exchanger, it is much easier to use a variety of good exchange companies out there - the independents.  I have just made a deposit and joined a new independent to try out - the United Kingdom Resort Exchange (UKRE). They gave me a double credit for one of my summer UK weeks, so I get better value than with RCI.  SFX recently got me a 2BR in London, something I have never been able to so with RCI. Independents have been getting me where I want to go.

However, my main concern is that RCI is pulling the rug out from under HOA's with its policies since Cendant took over, and they have made exchanging much less desirable that it was previously in the RCI system.  Sharing our info with others is the essence of these boards.  Unlike other timeshare boards, there is a little band of RCI cheerleaders on TUG which goes ballistic if you dare to share any info that is not rah-rah positive about RCI.  Some have left TUG over the years due to that atmosphere.  If you go back to the long thread on the RCI class action settlement and look at some of the Tuggers who were active on that thread, you may wonder why you do not see some of them posting much anymore.  I have a thick skin, however, and am not going to let the RCI cheerleaders run me off.  I will continue advocating timeshare owners and resorts voting with their feet.


----------



## Carolinian

RachelR said:


> One question please.  After reading this thread, I am interested to know if the term 'points light', is interchangeable with TPU's, or id it is referring to something else altogether.
> 
> TIA.



They are one and the same.  The term ''points lite'' was coined before we knew what RCI would officially call it.  A few of us still use it because it is more descriptive.


----------



## Carolinian

rickandcindy23 said:


> Sheraton Broadway Plantation deposits for owners, and you get just an averaged amount, which is a low number.  This is the reason not to use RCI and use II instead.



That is the smart thing to do - vote with your feet.  That's the same reason I give my summer UK weeks (or at least one so far, the other was already given to DAE this year) to UKRE, where I get double credits, far more value than the underpointed total I would get from RCI.


----------



## Carolinian

What I have been urging is for timesharers to be proactive if their resort is getting the royal screw, as many are.  It is not going to help to just get upset.  It is better to do something.  Go the the HOA annual meeting or write a letter to the resort newsletter or call the HOA president or the resort manager asking that the resort dual affiliate with II to give other options, and that the resort spread the word on independent exchange companies that are availible to members.  Too many timesharers think that if they want to exchange, they have to use RCI.  Information on alternatives needs to get out, and we need to insist that our resorts provide this information to members to help grow the competition.

Too many here look at things from the tunnel vision of their own exchange situation.  As a former HOA board member and president, I tend to look at things from the standpoint of what is going to help the whole timeshare system, including long term resort viability.




ronparise said:


> I dont pay homage, and I havent noticed anyone else that does either
> 
> No one disagrees with your assessment. There are overbuilt areas and over pointed resorts and there are areas where the number of timeshare units is far less than demand and resorts where you would expect a better points allocation than you get for a deposit and there are situations like the ops where RCI charges a lot more for a deposited week than they gave the person that made the deposit....And there is evidence that the biggest user of RCI is RCI themselves; their rental department. They just use us to get free inventory that they can rent.
> 
> None of this stuff is new. We are quite aware of whats going on. I think we are just tired of your constant rant on the subject
> 
> 
> We (like you)  have noticed certain inefficiencies in the system and choose to "play" it to our advantage rather than complain about something we cant change


----------



## tombo

Carolinian said:


> Too many here look at things from the tunnel vision of their own exchange situation.  As a former HOA board member and president, I tend to look at things from the standpoint of what is going to help the whole timeshare system, including long term resort viability.



Yes so many here have tunnel vision regarding RCI as opposed to your open minded fair assessment of the RCI TPU program. You contend that we only see what we want? What about you who hates everything RCI? You have hated RCI since long before they went to TPU's and you have NEVER made a single exchange using the new RCI program. 

Yes I want to learn how to benefit from an exchange program from a person who has NEVER made an exchange using it. I need to ignore those idiots posting here about ACTUAL exchange successes they are getting using RCI and listen to a person who hates a new exchange program he has never tried. 

You who base your disdain over TPU deposit and exchange values almost exclusivelly on the outer banks and Europe where you own and travel? Most of us NEVER exchange for either and have no desire to, yet those areas are the prime examples you use showing the underpointing on the "most requested areas". 

Your tired broken record of complaining about overvaluing overbuilt areas? Do you own a week in one of those areas? Nope. Perhaps you have TPU envy after reading about the TPU's TUGGERS are getting for depositing their "overbuilt weeks" as opposed to what you would get for the OBX. 

The conspiracy theories where RCI is in cahoots with developers to the detriment of all. Not one beneficial nugget of info regarding HOW TO USE the RCI exchange program successfully, yet never ending posts serving no good other than your venting of your hatred of a program you have never used and never will.



vckempson said:


> You and Carolinian decided to take all your marbles and go home.  "No Mas, No Mas."  The rest of us have figured out how to make the best of the system.
> 
> For any who haven't been a part of RCI since the advent of "Points Light" or "TPU's",  what useful information on RCI weeks could you possibly provide?  Valuable information on RCI weeks will come from those who have figured out a way to exploit the current system, not someone who gave up years ago.  What information of Carolinian's *needs* to be in any recent posts that's of help to *anyone* when it concerns RCI weeks?



I Agree with the above quote. After 4500 posts saying RCI sucks, RCI cheats members, RCI rents weeks, RCI underpoints high demand Europe and the OBX, RCI overpoints overbuilt areas, RCI is the anti-christ, etc, etc, what more can we learn from Carolinian's anti RCI rants? Nothing. 

I often still learn something from posts made by those actually using RCI that benefits me. For those people I continue to read, learn, and try to maximize my exchange program with RCI. Carolinian's posts have become repetitive RCI is bad because blah blah blah blah blah........... with no new knowledge or information EVER imparted regarding RCI. His posts I can ignore and miss nothing but his hatred for a company he doesn't do business with.


----------



## Ridewithme38

I never understood why there really needed to be 'exchange companies' anyway...You own the week, there are HUNDREDS of other owners on this forum and other forums...It's not hard to call your resort and say 'put this guys name down as the guest' Why would you pay hundreds of dollars to do something you can just do with a forum post or a PM?


----------



## tombo

Ridewithme38 said:


> I never understood why there really needed to be 'exchange companies' anyway...You own the week, there are HUNDREDS of other owners on this forum and other forums...It's not hard to call your resort and say 'put this guys name down as the guest' Why would you pay hundreds of dollars to do something you can just do with a forum post or a PM?



Because finding someone with the 3rd week in May in New York in a one bed unit willing to exchange it for my 2nd week in July in Panama City Beach is almost impossible with a group the size of TUG.


----------



## chalee94

Ridewithme38 said:


> I never understood why there really needed to be 'exchange companies' anyway...You own the week, there are HUNDREDS of other owners on this forum and other forums?



i believe II has about 2 million members.  RCI has more.

but "hundreds" is a big number...


----------



## Beefnot

Ridewithme38 said:


> I never understood why there really needed to be 'exchange companies' anyway...You own the week, there are HUNDREDS of other owners on this forum and other forums...It's not hard to call your resort and say 'put this guys name down as the guest' Why would you pay hundreds of dollars to do something you can just do with a forum post or a PM?



When did you add that website link to your signature?


----------



## Ridewithme38

chalee94 said:


> i believe II has about 2 million members.  RCI has more.
> 
> but "hundreds" is a big number...



It's a great number when its the amazing members of TUG! We only own the best of the best, so odds are, if you want to stay somewhere nice, you can find someone that owns it on the TUG Exchange section!


----------



## MichaelColey

Ridewithme38 said:


> I never understood why there really needed to be 'exchange companies' anyway...You own the week, there are HUNDREDS of other owners on this forum and other forums...It's not hard to call your resort and say 'put this guys name down as the guest' Why would you pay hundreds of dollars to do something you can just do with a forum post or a PM?


Surely you jest.

If I have a 2BR Las Vegas unit for Christmas and I'm looking for a 2BR unit in the Manhattan Club for week 28, what are the odds that I would find someone who has that week *who would be interested in what I have*?

That's where the exchange companies provide value.  You don't have to find an exact match.  You give a week that ANYBODY else will use.  You use a week ANYBODY else put into the exchange company.  You're almost NEVER going to match up on both ends of the transaction.


----------



## Ridewithme38

Beefnot said:


> When did you add that website link to your signature?



I just built the forum last night...Beyond looking for ways to get around forum security after getting banned...I've never really examined the in's and out's of forums before....it's mostly setup as an intellectual exercise, that's why it just a sub-directory of an old domain, not on its own domain


----------



## chalee94

Ridewithme38 said:


> It's a great number when its the amazing members of TUG! We only own the best of the best, so odds are, if you want to stay somewhere nice, you can find someone that owns it on the TUG Exchange section!



the other downside is that TUGgers always seem to expect to trade up, and it's hard for both sides of an exchange to trade up.


----------



## rrlongwell

Beefnot said:


> When did you add that website link to your signature?



clicked on the link the following is the web address that came up.  Did not know that this web site was Ride's until now (or is it?).

http://nvctruth.com/TimeShareXchange/index.php


----------



## rickandcindy23

chalee94 said:


> the other downside is that TUGgers always seem to expect to trade up, and it's hard for both sides of an exchange to trade up.


Ain't that the truth.  On another thread, a poster is distraught his 1 bedroom in Vegas doesn't trade one-on-one with a 2 bedroom Kona resort.  I have unrealistic expectations myself, so I cannot criticize.  

I know what weeks are best in the current system, and I know what no longer works.  You have to adjust your portfolio constantly.  The problem with buying what works great today is it may not work great tomorrow.  Don't pay a lot of cash to adjust for today's trading power requirements, or you might be throwing money away.  The eBay bidding on some of the good RCI traders has gotten out of control.  I hope trading power continues to be worth the $2K+ these people are paying.


----------



## ampaholic

Ridewithme38 said:


> I just built the forum last night...Beyond looking for ways to get around forum security after getting banned...I've never really examined the in's and out's of forums before....it's mostly setup as an intellectual exercise, that's why it just a sub-directory of an old domain, not on its own domain



Ha Ha - I can't get my head around *you* getting banned anywhere Ride. 

I have a week 51-2013 reserved in Hawaii, RCI claims they will give me 55 TPU for it. 

I plan to be able to get *three* weeks (regular old shoulder weeks anyway) with those 55 TPU. 

Can your "Exchange Group" offer a three for one?


----------



## Ridewithme38

rrlongwell said:


> clicked on the link the following is the web address that came up.  Did not know that this web site was Ride's until now (or is it?).
> 
> http://nvctruth.com/TimeShareXchange/index.php



Look! My Nephew!

http://nvctruth.com/majorgale/

Isn't he cute! I've got to put up new pics!


----------



## RachelR

Carolinian said:


> They are one and the same.  The term ''points lite'' was coined before we knew what RCI would officially call it.  A few of us still use it because it is more descriptive.



Thank you that's what I'd gathered.


----------



## Ridewithme38

ampaholic said:


> Ha Ha - I can't get my head around *you* getting banned anywhere Ride.
> 
> I have a week 51-2013 reserved in Hawaii, RCI claims they will give me 55 TPU for it.
> 
> I plan to be able to get *three* weeks (regular old shoulder weeks anyway) with those 55 TPU.
> 
> Can your "Exchange Group" offer a three for one?



Ah  but my "exchange group" won't cost you a dime.   How much do you pay rci for those three weeks?  89+189+189+189=$654.  You could buy 600+ weeks on ebay for that cost

And who knows, maybe someone in need of a Hawaii week will offer you 2 FREE weeks for your one Hawaii week!

Really I didn't plan on doing anything with the forum there was just nothing good on tv last night...But heck, if i can get a few hundred subscribers with a few thousand weeks between them(yah i know thats NOT going to happen) maybe i could make it a viable community...Right now i'm the only member...So even though i considered installing a chat room, it would be strange chatting with myself


----------



## tombo

Ridewithme38 said:


> It's a great number when its the amazing members of TUG! We only own the best of the best, so odds are, if you want to stay somewhere nice, you can find someone that owns it on the TUG Exchange section!



The potential exchange owner has to have the exact resort/date you want and be willing to exchange it for something you own. With an exchange company rarelly (if ever) does the person who's week I exchanged for exchange for the week I deposited. To exchange among owners requires perfect matches for both owners. Not going to happen often if ever.


----------



## Carolinian

rickandcindy23 said:


> Ain't that the truth.  On another thread, a poster is distraught his 1 bedroom in Vegas doesn't trade one-on-one with a 2 bedroom Kona resort.  I have unrealistic expectations myself, so I cannot criticize.
> 
> I know what weeks are best in the current system, and I know what no longer works.  You have to adjust your portfolio constantly.  The problem with buying what works great today is it may not work great tomorrow.  Don't pay a lot of cash to adjust for today's trading power requirements, or you might be throwing money away.  The eBay bidding on some of the good RCI traders has gotten out of control.  I hope trading power continues to be worth the $2K+ these people are paying.



I think that is, from an individual perspective, the worst thing about the new RCI.  The stability is gone.  Things used to change gradually and they made sense, like the first decline of SA trading power as more Americans bought to trade there from its original stellar power.  However, the more arbitrary thumb on the scales things that happen these days are a horse of a different color.  The more recent change in trading power for SA owners who did not live in SA from decent to crappy while the trading power of those who lived in SA did not change, and the supply / demand situation showed no sign of changing, illustrated the arbitrariness of the new RCI.

Why constantly be buying different timeshares to keep up with what RCI is doing at the moment?  The mantra on TUG for years has been to buy where you want to vacation.  If where you want to vacation is not treated fairly by RCI on trading power, then you have a problem.  When exchanging becomes a shell game and RCI is offering cheap rentals, it discourages owning the trade, and that will in the end cause problems for our HOA's as the exchangers bail out of ownership, which is already happening.

INHO, the next sea change at RCI will be when they merge Points and Points Lite.  It just does not make sense that they will keep two different points systems around for very long when it is more efficient to run one.  I am guessing we are probably two to five years away from that, but there might be some less major shifts between now and then.


----------



## SOS8260456

TUG has an area where people can post what they have and what they are looking for.  We just recently did a direct trade with another TUG member.  I needed a last minute 2 bedroom Easter week in Orlando and they were willing to exchange it for one of my July Ocean City, MD 1 bedrooms.  Not sure who got the "better" deal, but we both got something that we wanted/needed.  Our exchange part went well and I hope that the same goes for her side of the exchange in July.

Some issues that worried me were that at one point after everything was said and done, it looked like we may have had to cancel.  We didn't address this up front.  Luckily we didn't have to cancel, but what if she has to cancel.  At this point, it is too late to get full value if I deposit it. I may be able to rent it, but probably not for what I could have originally.

So while, so far it has been an overall good experience, I doubt I will be doing it again.  Although a good friend of ours just recently purchased from the developer ownership at Atlantis.  She knows how I strongly I feel about resale and it was way too late for rescinding.  So I just smiled and said "good, now I have a way to get into Atlantis, since I don't have starwood priority".


----------



## Carolinian

tombo said:


> The potential exchange owner has to have the exact resort/date you want and be willing to exchange it for something you own. With an exchange company rarelly (if ever) does the person who's week I exchanged for exchange for the week I deposited. To exchange among owners requires perfect matches for both owners. Not going to happen often if ever.



There are at least two of these exchange boards that facilitate bilateral trades of this nature.  Timex ( www.timex.to ) has been around longest, and Timeshare Juice is much more recent.  I tried Timex when it first came out without much luck.

Hmm!  Just clicked on Timex and it is dead.  Some other business has that address now.


----------



## Ridewithme38

tombo said:


> The potential exchange owner has to have the exact resort/date you want and be willing to exchange it for something you own. With an exchange company rarelly (if ever) does the person who's week I exchanged for exchange for the week I deposited. To exchange among owners requires perfect matches for both owners. Not going to happen often if ever.



I think 3 and even 4 way owner 2 owner exchanges are very possible with a forum type setup...The open discussions will help everything work out....Think about the 'cross talk' that goes on within threads...It would be just as easy to do a cross exchange

As for the cancellations mentioned by SOS, that could be an issue....if *I* was doing an owner 2 owner exchange i'd specify that once the exchange was made, there was a 'no return' 'no cancellation' policy

But heck, i'm not really taking this seriously, i haven't even written out a 'mission statement', i got up to 'things should be free'  you guys are jumping the gun here


----------



## gnorth16

Ridewithme38 said:


> I think 3 and even 4 way owner 2 owner exchanges are very possible with a forum type setup...The open discussions will help everything work out....Think about the 'cross talk' that goes on within threads...It would be just as easy to do a cross exchange
> 
> As for the cancellations mentioned by SOS, that could be an issue....if *I* was doing an owner 2 owner exchange i'd specify that once the exchange was made, there was a 'no return' 'no cancellation' policy
> 
> But heck, i'm not really taking this seriously, i haven't even written out a 'mission statement', i got up to 'things should be free'  you guys are jumping the gun here



I think with floating weeks and points, there is a possiblilty of something happening.  Fixed weeks are difficult, depending on how many people join.  As for me, II has done well with the Starwood preference and I have boatloads of TPU's, so why fix what ain't broke???


----------



## Ridewithme38

gnorth16 said:


> I think with floating weeks and points, there is a possiblilty of something happening.  Fixed weeks are difficult, depending on how many people join.  As for me, II has done well with the Starwood preference and I have boatloads of TPU's, so why fix what ain't broke???



Yup, thats the issue, alot of people would have to join...and to be honest....they won't...but atleast i get to play with website design a little


----------

