# Speculating... I think I know where all the missing RCI inventory is.



## skimble (Jan 11, 2010)

When we trade with RCI Weeks or Points, we're fishing for leftovers.  
Hilton, for example, has a new development in Carlsbad-- Grand Pacific Mar Brisa, yet even with my tiger GPR trader, I see no weeks in the system.  
In the past, with new development, there's a glut of weeks flooding RCI.  But with Hilton, it's traded for with universal Hilton Point.  Hilton has opened this resort to all its Hilton owners, and they get first pick.  Once the Hilton system has picked over everything, the leftovers end up in the RCI system for their Weeks and Points traders.  
The same thing is likely occuring with Wyndham, Worldmark and all the other Points systems.  They're getting first peek at the prime weeks within their own system.... AND, I would venture the prime weeks within RCI (as determined by comment cards.)  
This would bolster the new developer's credibility and help maintain new sales.  RCI Points still maintain strength in their last minute trades and their Points only inventory.  

We've been wondering where the inventory has gone.  It's speculation.  
What do you think?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 11, 2010)

Developer inventory has always been the key to ensure that exchange companies maintain a positive exchange credit balance with its depositers.  I am sure it is still being used for that purpose.  However instead of it all being put into the exchange pool, a lot of it is simply rented for profit by RCI.

Your other points are exactly right.  The resort developers are trying to keep the best weeks for its owners.  RCI should be for leftovers only.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 11, 2010)

While it is likely that what you are talking about is happening to some degree, it does not explain the sold out resorts, which are often the most desirable, which are no longer availible like they were.  The prime inventory there is simply being dumped into the RCI rental system.  A number of people have caught their very own weeks at such resorts being diverted to rental.

No this excuse does not flush for what RCI is doing.

It also does not explain the fact that when RCI changed its system last time about 20K weeks that had been availible before the change simply disappeared after the change.  RCI put them somewhere.  You can be sure that they did not just lose them.


----------



## bnoble (Jan 11, 2010)

> The same thing is likely occuring with Wyndham, Worldmark and all the other Points systems.


Wyndham very explicitly deposits "leftovers"---they deposit at about the eight month mark, two months after things have been available for free-for-all internal bookings.  Deposits tend to focus on older, larger, or otherwise less-in-demand resorts, and tend to be more shoulder time and less prime holiday weeks.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jan 11, 2010)

Each of the resort systems with internal exchange rights for their owners have a contract with RCI or Interval which will guarentee a certain amount of quality weeks are to be deposited for exchange. It's part of how the value of those points are determined for exchanges with RCI. Without some sort of contract you would be correct in that the exchange companies would only get the trash weeks. But then again, those systems trade power would be greatly diminished within the RCI or Interval exchange system.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 11, 2010)

*Things have changed. Many things have changed. Don't base choices on old processes*

The days of developers simply handing over large blocks of time to RCI/II to generate new leads are long gone. Now the majority of unsold time gos to rental by the Developer (they get the money vs RCI/II pocketing it) and a much more controlled flow of largely mid to poor time trickles into those systems. Plus very little new construction is underway so the new inventory being created is also far less than the past. Put is all together, along with the heavy rental focus of theose two "exchange" companies, and developer inventory is not the big source it was a decade ago.


----------



## bnoble (Jan 11, 2010)

> Without some sort of contract you would be correct in that the exchange companies would only get the trash weeks. But then again, those systems trade power would be greatly diminished within the RCI or Interval exchange system.


Exactly so---and that's the position Wyndham has taken.  To be charitable, Wyndham points are mediocre traders at best in RCI, but this is because Wyndham has explicitly decided to focus on owners first.  Wyndahm "generic" deposits simply cannot see large swaths of prime RCI Weeks inventory, no matter how many points you choose to deposit.

My primary use for Wyndham points in RCI is cheap access to over-deposited inventory with small-point deposits, or taking advantage of the Wyndham-internal preference to get an effective discount exchanging back into Wyndahm---and, even that is not as easy to do as it was prior to 5/30's revaluation.  If you want a prime RCI week, you need something other than Wyndham points to get it, for the most part.

At the end of the day, I'm okay with this.  I'm happy to be able to have the better inventory available as an owner in exchange for reduced trade power in RCI.  I use other assets to exchange for prime RCI time, and use Wyndham points mostly for Wyndham-internal bookings.


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 11, 2010)

IMHO

The OP plus Timeos2 posts together are pretty much on target.  About twelve years ago, I posted a message that I was concerned about the Balkanization of timesharing.  At the time, everyone was moaning and groaning that RCI was on the verge of having a complete monopoly on timesharing.  (II was pretty shakey at the time.)  My worry was the opposite.  I was concerned about the ever increasing number of "mini-systems" (that was actually the first time the word was used) and the fact that many timeshare trades would be internal to these systems and this would severely limit access to large numbers of resorts. 

Soon after, RCI, in a defensive move, created its own mini-system for independents (aka RCI Points - how often have you seen complaints from Weeks owners that they do not have access to the inventory within Points - so too for inventory within HGVC, etc. when owners trade internally).

Timeos2 has added another factor limiting exchanges.  When I first started exchanging, the common way that developers marketed their units was by offering three and four day promotions.  (Spend four days at the Maui WowWow Resort for only $295" etc.)  Now the exchange companies both allow the developer to reach new clients via rentals AND make money (instead of what were practically giveaways) to boot.  Why would a developer offer those old time low cost promotions when they can make more money renting their units via the exchange companies.  (Part of what made this possible is the rise of the internet.  Yes, it has affected timesharing.)

Believe it or not, I actually got a good piece of advice when I bought my timeshare from the salesperson.  I was worried about the longterm commitment to timesharing given that industry conditions might change.  She told me that if I could not justify completely recouping my investment within ten years, I should not buy.  She admitted that in the longer term, who knows what to expect.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jan 11, 2010)

I would agree that the individual systems contribute to the problem but, like I've said, these systems contract with the exchange companies to provide a certain number of weeks of varying quality each year. They include high demand weeks as well as low demand weeks. Depending on what they contract to give the exchange company will determine the value of the points.

It's already been mentioned that Wyndham has concentrated it's efforts to keep owners within the Wyndham system, not give a good number of quality weeks to RCI and suffers from poor trade value. Conversly it appears that DRI still gives Interval International some quality weeks and thus we can obtain quality exchanges for those points with Interval. I see a lot of very good weeks in high and peak demand times with our DRI points. They exchange as well as our Marriott weeks within the Interval system.

So yes, the "mini systems" do have the ability to impact the major exchange companies inventory but, the check and balance is the contracts those systems have to provide weeks to those exchange companies. Provide only the dog weeks as Wyndham appears to do and you get points that are dogs within the exchange system. Provide quality weeks as DRI appears to do and you get great availability for exchange using those points. 

It's all in how the systems contract with the exchange company. It's still a like for like exchange world. 

Now I do believe there has been a shift in how developer inventory is handled. As mentioned, right now there's not as much of it. I also believe the developers are holding their inventory for marketing and rental purposes rather than "giving" it away for exchanges. I can still find a lot of those $295 for a couple of nights at the Maui Wowwow resort. In fact I recieve mail, e-mail and phone call offers frequently to attend sales presentations on the cheap or for free. They're still out there.

What might not be out there is the developer inventory given to the exchange company to get fresh meat into the resorts. I can't think of a developer who hasn't announced delays in building new projects or stopped all new builds or expansions. HGVC and Marriott both put their Las Vegas projects on indefinate hold this past year. None of the timeshare companies we own with are putting up new buildings right now. If there's less or no inventory to give, then there's that much less for exchange. 

One other thought is that marketing has shifted. Developers use to rely on currrent owners and exchangers to fill their sales rooms. Current owners/exchangers had already been sold on the idea of timeshare. All they had to do was sell their product. But maybe we've done to good of a job educating through forums and media outlets about buying resale rather than retail. Maybe the closing percentages have changed where selling to current educated owners isn't as profitable as those renting a cheap week through a magazine add. It could be that it's easier to go after the crowd looking to save money by agreeing to a timeshare tour than it is to sell to someone who already owns timeshare. Thus the developer inventory is going into marketing rather than the exchange pool and hoping those exchangers not only take the tour but, don't realize how to buy on the resale market.


----------



## regatta333 (Jan 11, 2010)

bnoble said:


> Exactly so---and that's the position Wyndham has taken.  To be charitable, Wyndham points are mediocre traders at best in RCI, but this is because Wyndham has explicitly decided to focus on owners first.  Wyndahm "generic" deposits simply cannot see large swaths of prime RCI Weeks inventory, no matter how many points you choose to deposit.



I think a big part of the reason for the dramatic drop in trading power is the degree to which Wyndham expanded the PIC program.  They have nothing to do with that inventory EXCEPT to deposit it in RCI.  

I think that's also the reason we can't deposit weeks from our home resort directly to RCI and are stuck with "generic" non-searchable deposits.  Wyndham can't very well assign real searchable deposits to all the members who want them, because they would not have enough of them.  And we are now penalized by having to pay higher exchange fees to use these deposits.  It would be interesting to know what percentage of the weeks the Wyndham deposits are Wyndham vs PIC.  I suspect the Wyndham % has decreased significantly and that was the reason Wyndham yanked our ability to ARP deposits to RCI.

Now, when Wyndham does assign searchable weeks, they are largely last-minute cancellations that have very little trading power.  Thankfully, I am down to my last deposit with RCI.  Once that is gone, I am done with depositing any weeks, unless I can get what I want immediately through a search-first, retaining the ability to pull my deposit back.


----------



## skimble (Jan 11, 2010)

"Roger" said:


> IMHO
> 
> The OP plus Timeos2 posts together are pretty much on target.  About twelve years ago, I posted a message that I was concerned about the Balkanization of timesharing.  At the time, everyone was moaning and groaning that RCI was on the verge of having a complete monopoly on timesharing.  (II was pretty shakey at the time.)  My worry was the opposite.  I was concerned about the ever increasing number of "mini-systems" (that was actually the first time the word was used) and the fact that many timeshare trades would be internal to these systems and this would severely limit access to large numbers of resorts.
> 
> ...



The thing I don't understand is where all the prime inventory outside the mini-system goes.  
Take Arroyo Robles for example.  It's probably the nicest (older) resort in Sedona.  I searched 2 years out with my tiger, and I managed to see one week show up-- and it started 2 days out.  It's a floating weeks resort, and I know they've had many weeks to deposit within RCI Weeks each year. 
About 1-2 years ago, AR went (fell) to RCI Points.  (I just checked Points, and.... there's a lot of inventory.  And, the Point cost is outrageous!  (86,000 for an October week.)
OK... I guess I'm answering my own question here... RCI has seized all Weeks deposits for their Points system. Do they makes those weeks available to the mini-systems too?  

So... the developers are renting, RCI is renting, mini-systems are feasting first, and RCI Points is seizing Weeks deposits when they branch across both systems.


----------



## bnoble (Jan 12, 2010)

Perhaps the problem is that your tiger was declawed on 5/30's revaluation.  This is with a week that post 5/30 is still a very good but not-quite-tiger deposit:

Arroyo Roble Resort (#5172)	89  available units
 	 	 Sedona 
AZ, 86339 
USA 

map resort
Available Unit Size
2 BR (6 max)
Check-In Date Range 
26-Aug-2010 - 
01-Dec-2011


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 12, 2010)

What all of this ignores is that if you look at areas either that do not have mini-system resorts or have little of it, like the OBX or many places in Europe, the exact same dissappearance of inventory has happened.  Thereforefore, this excuse does not explain it.





"Roger" said:


> IMHO
> 
> The OP plus Timeos2 posts together are pretty much on target.  About twelve years ago, I posted a message that I was concerned about the Balkanization of timesharing.  At the time, everyone was moaning and groaning that RCI was on the verge of having a complete monopoly on timesharing.  (II was pretty shakey at the time.)  My worry was the opposite.  I was concerned about the ever increasing number of "mini-systems" (that was actually the first time the word was used) and the fact that many timeshare trades would be internal to these systems and this would severely limit access to large numbers of resorts.
> 
> ...


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 12, 2010)

*Be clear how it all works*



skimble said:


> OK... I guess I'm answering my own question here... RCI has seized all Weeks deposits for their Points system. Do they makes those weeks available to the mini-systems too?
> 
> So... the developers are renting, RCI is renting, mini-systems are feasting first, and RCI Points is seizing Weeks deposits when they branch across both systems.



While it is possible that many of the weeks have gone to RCI Points it is important to understand how that would happen. RCI can't "seize" the weeks and convert them to points. Owners have to choose to join the Points system. But if they do, unlike weeks, for at least three years those weeks are automatically deposited with RCI Points. It's part of the deal.  

What we're really seeing is a very unfortunate fragmentation of inventory from what once was virtually a single repository to many, small pockets of resorts that are unavailable unless you belong to the often costly system it resides in. If your goal from timeshare ownership is to travel widely using different resorts/locations this really hurts.  In fact it nearly ends the ability to freely obtain resorts via trade and replaces it with a very limited selection from within your group and external exchange or really needing to rent rather than exchange to get the widest choices.  It is getting worse as more owners opt for systems outside of the big guys and as the mini-systems lock up control of inventory that never gets to be deposited.  

My advice now is to buy a week you wish to use, don't rely on trades especially for weeks based ownerships. Or buy into as large a points based system as you can find that has resorts in areas you are likely to want to visit to maximize internal trades and only use the occasional third party outside exchange to meet your needs. Still a "use" based ownership. If your primary use is a different resort each and every year then it is tough to say any exchange or points system would fit now. In that case you are most likely much better off simply planning to rent what you need as that will be the biggest selection and lowest cost option.


----------



## bnoble (Jan 12, 2010)

My take is that there isn't any one answer.  We all want "something to blame", but there are several different factors all going on at the same time.  Mini-systems are keeping prime inventory internally.  Exchange companies are renting more weeks.  Balkanization separates inventory pools.  Owners are finding it more valuable to use Internet-based rental outlets to rent out their time and use the proceeds to rent what they wish.  And so on.

The important thing to notice is that none of these things are going to go back to "the way things were."  So, one must adapt.


----------



## SilverSandsOwner (Jan 12, 2010)

We are all looking for answers but the main reason is they changed the way trading power is assigned.  Take 2 exact weeks, one prior to 5/30 and the newly deposit one and than do a search for the same area and same month.  You will see a signaficant drop in the number of units available.  In your search you must go out more than 2 months so you don't get the 45 day window units and the month in question must be available to both weeks. 

At this point I am revolting and I did not deposit my additional weeks (2) and I am looking for alternatives to RCI.  I have deposited one week that I can't get back and I use it for my comparisons between the 2 weeks in searching.

Currently, I am about 40% of what I use to get.


----------



## skimble (Jan 12, 2010)

bnoble said:


> Perhaps the problem is that your tiger was declawed on 5/30's revaluation.  This is with a week that post 5/30 is still a very good but not-quite-tiger deposit:
> 
> Arroyo Roble Resort (#5172)	89  available units
> Sedona
> ...




I wonder if the "declawing of my tiger" might be in the rooms.  I'm trading a 1 bedroom-- something that pre 5/30 pulled anything.  Maybe I'll have better luck with trading 2 bd for 2 bd... something I've always thought RCI should adhere to.


----------



## skimble (Jan 12, 2010)

Carolinian said:


> What all of this ignores is that if you look at areas either that do not have mini-system resorts or have little of it, like the OBX or many places in Europe, the exact same dissappearance of inventory has happened.  Thereforefore, this excuse does not explain it.



Have we done a cross-comparison to see if they're finally filtering for equal size units.  In the past, we've been able to exchange studios for 3 bedroom units... could they have changed the system to reflect equal trades?  I do not have a 2 bd deposit to check with at this time.


----------



## skimble (Jan 12, 2010)

timeos2 said:


> While it is possible that many of the weeks have gone to RCI Points it is important to understand how that would happen. RCI can't "seize" the weeks and convert them to points. Owners have to choose to join the Points system. But if they do, unlike weeks, for at least three years those weeks are automatically deposited with RCI Points. It's part of the deal.
> 
> What we're really seeing is a very unfortunate fragmentation of inventory from what once was virtually a single repository to many, small pockets of resorts that are unavailable unless you belong to the often costly system it resides in. If your goal from timeshare ownership is to travel widely using different resorts/locations this really hurts.  In fact it nearly ends the ability to freely obtain resorts via trade and replaces it with a very limited selection from within your group and external exchange or really needing to rent rather than exchange to get the widest choices.  It is getting worse as more owners opt for systems outside of the big guys and as the mini-systems lock up control of inventory that never gets to be deposited.
> 
> My advice now is to buy a week you wish to use, don't rely on trades especially for weeks based ownerships. Or buy into as large a points based system as you can find that has resorts in areas you are likely to want to visit to maximize internal trades and only use the occasional third party outside exchange to meet your needs. Still a "use" based ownership. If your primary use is a different resort each and every year then it is tough to say any exchange or points system would fit now. In that case you are most likely much better off simply planning to rent what you need as that will be the biggest selection and lowest cost option.



I agree with what you're saying.... except the part about RCI seizing inventory.  I don't have hard facts to prove this stuff... only people with access to RCI's internal workings would.  
I own at Seapointe in Carlsbad and at the San Clemente Inn.  RCI offers a pitance in points for SCI units.  It's hardly worth buying into Points.  Very few weeks were available in the system using internal trade status-- a VRI week and an SCI exchange.   With Carlsbad Seapoint, it's a similar story.  I have a GPR week to trade with (internal trade status) yet there are Very few weeks available on the Weeks side.  Yet, the Points side is well stocked.  

How do the resort convert to Points and stock RCI with an abundance of weeks?  Anecdotally, it would appear they are taking from Weeks.  Under their own formulary, they may be replacing them with "equal status" weeks.  But they're doing something to fill those coffers.


----------



## skimble (Jan 12, 2010)

bnoble said:


> The important thing to notice is that none of these things are going to go back to "the way things were."  So, one must adapt.



Understanding the big picture is the first step in finding a way to adapt to the future of timesharing.  
It would appear to me, possibly, the best course of action may be to get a week in one of the minis, and see about converting my existing weeks for Points in their system.  But, can I do that without purchasing from the developer?


----------



## melschey (Jan 12, 2010)

skimble said:


> Understanding the big picture is the first step in finding a way to adapt to the future of timesharing.
> It would appear to me, possibly, the best course of action may be to get a week in one of the minis, and see about converting my existing weeks for Points in their system.  But, can I do that without purchasing from the developer?



WorldMark is easy to get resale and despite what the sales weasels say if you learn how to use it you don't need travelshare, travelshare  is really just a sales gimmick.
By the way WN still trades great with II. I don't deposit anything with RCI anymore I only use them for last call vacations and when my membership is up it is not in my plans to renew.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 12, 2010)

SilverSandsOwner said:


> We are all looking for answers but the main reason is they changed the way trading power is assigned.  Take 2 exact weeks, one prior to 5/30 and the newly deposit one and than do a search for the same area and same month.  You will see a signaficant drop in the number of units available.  In your search you must go out more than 2 months so you don't get the 45 day window units and the month in question must be available to both weeks.
> 
> At this point I am revolting and I did not deposit my additional weeks (2) and I am looking for alternatives to RCI.  I have deposited one week that I can't get back and I use it for my comparisons between the 2 weeks in searching.
> 
> Currently, I am about 40% of what I use to get.



Good for you.  I am right there with you.  5/30/2009 was Black Saturday around here.  We lost trading power that we enjoyed for many years, and all in one weekend.  

I have one week left in RCI Weeks, then it's bye-bye to Weeks.  I still like points, but if they change that, I will be the first one to dump my points on eBay for $1.  I have no loyalty to RCI whatsoever, even though we have been members since 1984.  RCI basically told me They couldn't care less that we were upset about the trading power dropping on all of our weeks.  I couldn't care less if they ever get another week at any of our resorts.   

I made sure that owners at Twin Rivers and Val Chatelle in Colorado, since I am on the HOA boards of both, got a list of alternative exchange companies and the encouragement from the board to use any and all of them, rather than RCI.  

Threads like this one are helping Google searches find out about RCI, and that's another positive thing that comes from posting the same thing over and over.     My own little campaign.  

Try www.tpmaui.com
www.htse.net  9999 username and htse password for non-members
www.tradingplaces.com
www.platinuminterchange.com
www.daelive.com
www.redweek.com  Mandatory $15 fee, but they have a decent exchange system


----------



## Mel (Jan 12, 2010)

bnoble said:


> Perhaps the problem is that your tiger was declawed on 5/30's revaluation.  This is with a week that post 5/30 is still a very good but not-quite-tiger deposit:
> 
> Arroyo Roble Resort (#5172)	89  available units
> Sedona
> ...



I have to agree - you were devalued!  My 1BR Panama City beach unit pulls up 89 units, all 2BR over the course of the next 2 years... a few in late 2010, 8 or 9 every month from Jan to Sept 2011, and a few after that.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 12, 2010)

*RCI and the resort don't have control - owners do*



skimble said:


> I agree with what you're saying.... except the part about RCI seizing inventory.  I don't have hard facts to prove this stuff... only people with access to RCI's internal workings would.
> I own at Seapointe in Carlsbad and at the San Clemente Inn.  RCI offers a pitance in points for SCI units.  It's hardly worth buying into Points.  Very few weeks were available in the system using internal trade status-- a VRI week and an SCI exchange.   With Carlsbad Seapoint, it's a similar story.  I have a GPR week to trade with (internal trade status) yet there are Very few weeks available on the Weeks side.  Yet, the Points side is well stocked.
> 
> How do the resort convert to Points and stock RCI with an abundance of weeks?  Anecdotally, it would appear they are taking from Weeks.  Under their own formulary, they may be replacing them with "equal status" weeks.  But they're doing something to fill those coffers.



I assume the weeks are sold thus control is with the owners not the resort. If they are not sold then the developer controls them and can do what they please but few, if any, simply give thenm away to RCI Weeks OR Points anymore as they too want the income.  Your idea just doesn't fit the facts of ownership any resort would have.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 13, 2010)

skimble said:


> Have we done a cross-comparison to see if they're finally filtering for equal size units.  In the past, we've been able to exchange studios for 3 bedroom units... could they have changed the system to reflect equal trades?  I do not have a 2 bd deposit to check with at this time.



But a two bedroom for a two bedroom is often *not* an equal trade.  To assess whether a trade is equal one has to look at the *totality* of factors, not use tunnel vision on one factor alone.  Between a 3BR Orlando pink week and a prime red studio at London's Allen House, it is Allen House that gets very much the short end of the stick.

If RCI is doing this on a factor by factor basis, instead of on the totality of factors, then it is to create arbitrary and nonsensical procedures to milk the system for more rental opportunities for themselves.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 13, 2010)

Mini-systems have a mini-impact on the situation.  The rentals make exchanging less viable, and that feeds on itself as people find alternatives to the ownership / exchange model or alternatives to RCI as an exchange company.  The mini-system excuse does not explain the loss of exchange inventory in places where mini-systems are non-existant or virtually non-existant like the OBX or many countries of Europe.  Obviously something else is the real answer.

On an exchange into a GC in the UK last year, I attended their Monday morning gathering of owners and exchangers, something I usually do not do, but with the weather that day, I decided to join in.  It was interesting, as the discussion got around quickly to the exchange system, and I was not the one who brought it up!  Most of those attending were or had been members of RCI, and all had noted extreme changes in exchange availibility in recent years.  Some had dropped RCI already, and none gave prime weeks in British resorts to RCI anymore.  Some still gave them weeks in the Canary Islands or an off season UK week.  Several were using DAE and happy with it.  Some had not heard of DAE but were busy writing down details as a British DAE member explained it.  More were using their prime UK weeks themselves or using the resort's own rental program to rent the weeks out and then use the proceeds for trips to other places.  Amazingly none had heard of the class action lawsuit in the US, something I filled them in on.    Of the group attending, most were owners rather than people who had exchanged in.

I think that is a good snapshot of what RCI's policies have led to and will continue to lead to.




bnoble said:


> My take is that there isn't any one answer.  We all want "something to blame", but there are several different factors all going on at the same time.  Mini-systems are keeping prime inventory internally.  Exchange companies are renting more weeks.  Balkanization separates inventory pools.  Owners are finding it more valuable to use Internet-based rental outlets to rent out their time and use the proceeds to rent what they wish.  And so on.
> 
> The important thing to notice is that none of these things are going to go back to "the way things were."  So, one must adapt.


----------



## bnoble (Jan 13, 2010)

> the best course of action may be to get a week in one of the minis, and see about converting my existing weeks for Points in their system. But, can I do that without purchasing from the developer?


In at least three cases (Wyndham, WorldMark, Bluegreen) you can buy resale points that "work".  There are little perks that are not available to any/all resale buyers in Wyndham and Bluegreen.  In Wyndham they almost certainly aren't worth it.  In Bluegreen, they *might* be---depends on you.

I own two still-quite-good fixed weeks, and a Wyndham points deed.  If I only had one, it would be the Wyndham.


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 13, 2010)

A few numbers to consider with regard to the UK and the non-impact of mini-systems ...

The most recent RCI Points book has 68 resorts listed on its map page.  29 of them (roughly a third of them) are listed as being in RCI Points.  (I might add that given the way RCI Europe runs its points system, units at any English resort can be ceded to Points regardless of whether the resort is affiliated with Points or not.) Diamond (formerly Sunterra Europe) lists 9 resorts (some of them the ones listed by RCI) as affiliated with them, plus 5 marinas using narrowboats.  Myseasons lists 7 resorts in England.  Geoholidays lists 9 resorts where they have units.  

There are other affiliations that I am only vaguely aware of and certainly some that I am totally unaware of.  When I stayed at Thurnham Hall, they were promoting sales in which one joined a three timeshare alliance.  Haven Court last year (oops, that would be Wales) announced that they had just begun an alliance with some larger entity.  When I stayed at Burnside Park this fall, they announced that they had recently been bought by Hapimag.  So it goes.

(Two quick comments.  Note that these three are recent mini-system affiliations, not something long standing.  Secondly, you might sense a pattern here.  If anyone owns in England and would like to have their timeshare to become affiliated with a mini-system, perhaps the most effective way to accomplish this would be to set up a week for my wife and I to go there.)

Given that England during the summer is one of the most sought out exchanges by Americans, all of this certainly has had to have had an impact on availability for the non-affiliated owner. The Balkanization of timesharing ...


----------



## skimble (Jan 14, 2010)

About 5 years ago, I recall reading a post on TUG about what RCI wanted from new Points resorts.  Management (or the board) at this resort were so upset with the request they posted it in their newsletter in defiance of RCI.
RCI was asking the resort to allocate 75% of all weeks deposited with RCI Points to be Prime.  The other 25% were off season (these were floating weeks ownerships.)  This particular resort, and I wish I could remember the name of it, was upset.  They didn't see the rationale.  They acknowledged the potential for the availability of prime weeks to owners would diminish.  
Assuming this is true, it points out where RCI takes more than a fair share and disregards ownership rules.  It shows the potential for a disproportionate number of primes to be diverted from the owner.  And, if this is their philosophy in action with contracted Points resorts, can't we assume they take the same sort of approach to their own inventory?  
I know I'm pointing out the obvious.  But seeing further evidence that shows RCI wants more than their fair share, to the ditriment of owners, is a strong testimony to their business philosophy.  
I've often thought, if RCI can establish deals behind the scences like the 75/25 split, what other kinds of deals are they establishing that we don't even know about with the minis?  Is there a reverse 75/25 split with the minis-- 75% primes stay within the mini system, and 25% goes to RCI.  Or could it be even worse?  95/5


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 14, 2010)

The resort at which I attended the introductory meeting is a sold out resort that is not part of any mini-system.  Indeed, they themselves dodged the Sunterra bullet when an association board member, whom I met while I was there, inserted a poison pill in their governing instruments to prevent any such takeover at a time when Sunterra was trying to buy the remaining inventory of the original developer.

DRI trades through II, not RCI.  The inventory that RCI gets at DRI resorts comes from Weeks-based owners at those resorts who did not convert to points.

Thurnham Leisure Industries went bankrupt several years ago and was bought by Sunterra.  Of its three resorts, Sunterra forced owners out at Club Brittania and sold off the property, getting more for it than they paid for all of Thurnham Leisure Industries.  While Thurnham Vacation Club still exists, DRI is currently in the process of forcing out its members at Thurnham Hall.

Hapimag does not trade with RCI.  They only trade with DAE and DRI.  And, again, Hapimag did not buy ''the resort''.  They bought remaining developer inventory and management rights.

One European mini-system that is based in the British Isles is Seasons.  But Seasons left RCI and joined II, specifically over its complaints that RCI's rentals were severely damaging their members exchange prospects.  They also expressed their dissatisfaction with RCI Points.  Seasons does have a trading partner relationship with DAE as well, and I have an upcoming trade to Ireland at Seasons at Knocktopher Abbey through DAE.

At the Timeshare Stripped Bare conference in the UK last year one major developer raised the point during one of the sessions that RCI rentals and the resulting decline in exchange availibility was significantly impacting his members satisfaction with timeshare and member retention for the resort.  You might look up accounts of that conference over on TimeshareTalk.

I can also recall trading into a GC resort in southern England and walking into their onsite resale office just out of curiosity.  The staff person in promoting the resales volunteered that if I wanted to trade I should join II or DAE, as a lot of their members were complaining about the big decline in availibility at RCI these days. He also said that some of their members had joined RCI Points, but he had heard nothing but bad experiences with that. The resort was dual affiliated, but I noted a couple of II posters on the walls but none for RCI.

The infamous Stuart ''The Bullfrog'' Lamont of South Africa's Club Leisure Group launched one or more of his sleazy points-based clubs in the UK, which have since failed.

A European resort being a member of RCI Points does not necessarily mean a lot.  The manager of one such German resort I traded into told me that the number of their owners who used RCI Points were in single digits and several of those had expressed their extreme dissatisfaction with RCI Points to her recently.




"Roger" said:


> A few numbers to consider with regard to the UK and the non-impact of mini-systems ...
> 
> The most recent RCI Points book has 68 resorts listed on its map page.  29 of them (roughly a third of them) are listed as being in RCI Points.  (I might add that given the way RCI Europe runs its points system, units at any English resort can be ceded to Points regardless of whether the resort is affiliated with Points or not.) Diamond (formerly Sunterra Europe) lists 9 resorts (some of them the ones listed by RCI) as affiliated with them, plus 5 marinas using narrowboats.  Myseasons lists 7 resorts in England.  Geoholidays lists 9 resorts where they have units.
> 
> ...


----------



## JEFF H (Jan 14, 2010)

The Image of RCI I have in my head is this huge greedy profit monster that will slice and dice members to extract every last drop of profit possible.

You all explained perfectly the many reasons why the pool of available weeks has been shrinking over the last few years.
RCI is still sitting in the middle of this shrinking pool sucking up as many of the weeks it possibly can to use for rentals to keep their profits on the rise.
RCI has found that by reducing the trade value of member deposits they can control the outflow of weeks from the exchange pool.
This allows RCI to keep sucking up the same volume of weeks or maybe even increasing it for use as rentals.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 14, 2010)

*Why does this nonsense continue?*



skimble said:


> About 5 years ago, I recall reading a post on TUG about what RCI wanted from new Points resorts.  Management (or the board) at this resort were so upset with the request they posted it in their newsletter in defiance of RCI.
> RCI was asking the resort to allocate 75% of all weeks deposited with RCI Points to be Prime.  The other 25% were off season (these were floating weeks ownerships.)  This particular resort, and I wish I could remember the name of it, was upset.  They didn't see the rationale.  They acknowledged the potential for the availability of prime weeks to owners would diminish.
> Assuming this is true, it points out where RCI takes more than a fair share and disregards ownership rules.  It shows the potential for a disproportionate number of primes to be diverted from the owner.  And, if this is their philosophy in action with contracted Points resorts, can't we assume they take the same sort of approach to their own inventory?
> I know I'm pointing out the obvious.  But seeing further evidence that shows RCI wants more than their fair share, to the ditriment of owners, is a strong testimony to their business philosophy.
> I've often thought, if RCI can establish deals behind the scences like the 75/25 split, what other kinds of deals are they establishing that we don't even know about with the minis?  Is there a reverse 75/25 split with the minis-- 75% primes stay within the mini system, and 25% goes to RCI.  Or could it be even worse?  95/5



This fallacy keeps getting repeated by people who for some reason feel threatened by points systems. I have sat on two different Boards who reviewed RCI Points affiliation - one decided to join and one didn't - so I hae first hand, direct knowledge of the process. 

RCI asks NOTHING of the resort as far as specific weeks or use times. They can't as they, unlike the posters spreading FUD, understand that the owners control the deposits not the resort. Obviously they will target the owners of the best weeks but they want anyone who desires to convert to points (thats how they make money on the deal).  And remember too that RCI is not selling these conversions - it is a company of some type set up to market the conversions to owners/new buyers.  The only weeks the resort controls are any owned by the Association (which shouldn't be too many as the individual owners have to cover the fees for those weeks) and if a developer is still involved they would have the right to do as they wish with those times as they would also be paying the fees.  

The only time that a large block of specific time could be requested by RCI Points would be if a new, largely unsold resort became affiliated. As the developer would have close to full control should they decide to commit a big chunk to Points even before they were sold to individuals they could. But that doesn't in any way impact the eventual owner as it was being sold as part of RCI Points - when it first gets deposited is meaningless. 

I wonder why spreading this type of misinformation seems to be so important to the non-points folks.  Perhaps we should start a "the sky is falling" thread stating that RCI Weeks wants resorts to deposit the best times to that system (as does II and others).  Apparently that is a bad thing so why not play it up?   There are plenty of things about Points that are significantly different than weeks based trades but demands for resorts to artificially deposit the best times in preference to owners and/or weeks if that is even a possibility simply isn't one of them.


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 14, 2010)

Carolinian said:


> ...
> Hapimag does not trade with RCI.  They only trade with DAE and DRI.  And, again, Hapimag did not buy ''the resort''.  They bought remaining developer inventory and management rights.....


I am not going through this post line by line, but the logic escapes me.  The question is whether mini-systems are having an impact on RCI inventory.  Let us just take the above quote (you can extend the response to other parts of the post).

I confess I do not know the exact legal nature of Hapimag's new relationship with Burnside.  I do know that every unit at Burnside has promotional material for owners (old and new) to become Hapimag members.  Once a member, you can trade within the Hapimag system.  If ten percent of the owners do that (regardless of how they then obtain other Hapimag units via RCI, DAE, or directly through Hapimag - it makes no difference), there would be ten percent less deposits of Burnside units available to the general RCI membership.  Fifty percent join, fifty percent less units available for RCI members.

This is not just an academic debate.  People are puzzled with regard to how to get the best trades in the new environment.  To suggest that mini-systems have no impact is not correct.  It is less inventory for traditional trades, but increased opportunity to secure units within a mini-system.

Carolinian has constantly responded that mini-systems are too limited in choices.  Perhaps once you join Hapimag, you can only trade to Hapimag and then his comment would be a consideration.  But, with most mini-systems, you get first shot at inventory within the system, and, if you want something outside the system, then you trade through RCI or II and are no worse off with regard to your chances at getting what you want than if you just had an unaffiliated timeshare.

The sound advice for anyone currently buying is to consider if there is a mini-system that has a lot of attractive inventory for their own tastes.  That will give them a leg up (a big one) in getting what they want within the system (with these units disappearing from the available list for non-members) and leave them at no disadvantage in trading outside of the system.


----------



## skimble (Jan 14, 2010)

timeos2 said:


> This fallacy keeps getting repeated by people who for some reason feel threatened by points systems. I have sat on two different Boards who reviewed RCI Points affiliation - one decided to join and one didn't - so I hae first hand, direct knowledge of the process.
> 
> RCI asks NOTHING of the resort as far as specific weeks or use times. They can't as they, unlike the posters spreading FUD, understand that the owners control the deposits not the resort. Obviously they will target the owners of the best weeks but they want anyone who desires to convert to points (thats how they make money on the deal).  And remember too that RCI is not selling these conversions - it is a company of some type set up to market the conversions to owners/new buyers.  The only weeks the resort controls are any owned by the Association (which shouldn't be too many as the individual owners have to cover the fees for those weeks) and if a developer is still involved they would have the right to do as they wish with those times as they would also be paying the fees.
> 
> ...



  Owners do not control the distribution of floating weeks, the management company does.  Some resort have alternative ways for doling them out as per CC&R's with call in dates and such.  I own 14 different resort weeks, 9 of which are floating.  Owners do not control floating week deposits when they are converted to Points. 
 Two of my RCI Points weeks are fixed week, and points are allocated according to this fixed week.  The others are floating by season.   Because it is a seasonal week, the management company (and RCI) have no accountability when it comes to allocating weeks.  Owners may control the weeks that are deposited, but only when they are fixed.  Management controls floating weeks deposited with RCI Points.  Were the boards you sat on reviewing a Points affiliation for *fixed or floating weeks*?
 Also, I do not recall any refutation on your part at the time of the TUG post citing this 75/25 split.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 15, 2010)

Even if there are some fewer people making deposits, there is an exact equivalent number of people making exchanges for those deposits, so for RCI that should balance itself out.  It does NOT remotely explain the loss of inventory at sold out stand alone resorts.  Indeed with some fewer people from mini-systems making exchanges to those resorts, if the exchange system was run fairly, then there should be an increase, not a decrease in availibility at such resorts.  Your logic escapes me. 




"Roger" said:


> I am not going through this post line by line, but the logic escapes me.  The question is whether mini-systems are having an impact on RCI inventory.  Let us just take the above quote (you can extend the response to other parts of the post).
> 
> I confess I do not know the exact legal nature of Hapimag's new relationship with Burnside.  I do know that every unit at Burnside has promotional material for owners (old and new) to become Hapimag members.  Once a member, you can trade within the Hapimag system.  If ten percent of the owners do that (regardless of how they then obtain other Hapimag units via RCI, DAE, or directly through Hapimag - it makes no difference), there would be ten percent less deposits of Burnside units available to the general RCI membership.  Fifty percent join, fifty percent less units available for RCI members.
> 
> ...


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 15, 2010)

*Still not factual*



skimble said:


> Owners do not control the distribution of floating weeks, the management company does.  Some resort have alternative ways for doling them out as per CC&R's with call in dates and such.  I own 14 different resort weeks, 9 of which are floating.  Owners do not control floating week deposits when they are converted to Points.
> Two of my RCI Points weeks are fixed week, and points are allocated according to this fixed week.  The others are floating by season.   Because it is a seasonal week, the management company (and RCI) have no accountability when it comes to allocating weeks.  Owners may control the weeks that are deposited, but only when they are fixed.  Management controls floating weeks deposited with RCI Points.  Were the boards you sat on reviewing a Points affiliation for *fixed or floating weeks*?
> Also, I do not recall any refutation on your part at the time of the TUG post citing this 75/25 split.



Owners do control the deposits through their requests. If they ask for the best times, the most likely request, then that is what they have to deposit until it is gone (to OWNERS as no one else can take it!).  

No matter how you cut it a week can only be assigned once each use period and the best are going to go first. Yes a questionable management could assign themselves those best use times but only to the degree that they OWN that time. If if is owned by individual buyers the management can't take it unless they are willing to say its "gone" and are actually cheating owners out of their legitimate use. It may happen but it (hopefully) is not the norm and should be caught by owners after a short period of time. 

As for the 75/25 split again the minis are going to take the best time they are entitled to - that only makes sense. And since they are there in line at the zero minute they can get what they want. But if they only have say 30% of the ownership then once they assign 30% of the total available use the rest go to the other eligible owners. Within a small window they may get a few use periods more or less but overall they have to basically remain within the percentages of what they own and thus control. It is crying wolf to say that those groups - or RCI, who do NOT have any magical connection to owner controlled resorts or management, can simply step in and take the best ties for themselves. It simply doesn't happen unless something both unethical and likely illegal is occurring. Not at all the norm.


----------



## skimble (Jan 16, 2010)

timeos2 said:


> Owners do control the deposits through their requests. If they ask for the best times, the most likely request, then that is what they have to deposit until it is gone (to OWNERS as no one else can take it!).
> 
> No matter how you cut it a week can only be assigned once each use period and the best are going to go first. Yes a questionable management could assign themselves those best use times but only to the degree that they OWN that time. If if is owned by individual buyers the management can't take it unless they are willing to say its "gone" and are actually cheating owners out of their legitimate use. It may happen but it (hopefully) is not the norm and should be caught by owners after a short period of time.
> 
> As for the 75/25 split again the minis are going to take the best time they are entitled to - that only makes sense. And since they are there in line at the zero minute they can get what they want. But if they only have say 30% of the ownership then once they assign 30% of the total available use the rest go to the other eligible owners. Within a small window they may get a few use periods more or less but overall they have to basically remain within the percentages of what they own and thus control. It is crying wolf to say that those groups - or RCI, who do NOT have any magical connection to owner controlled resorts or management, can simply step in and take the best ties for themselves. It simply doesn't happen unless something both unethical and likely illegal is occurring. Not at all the norm.



There's nothing illegal about politics.  And, that's the game.  Owners of floating weeks that are converted to Points do not have a say in the week they deposit.  There is simply a conversion, not an allocation to RCI of a specific week.  The owner gets points credit for a week; they don't know what week it is.  That allocation is between RCI and management.  The management company has all the flexibility in the world to pack extra pork into the RCI coffers, and nobody need know.  
And, you use the term "the extent to which they OWN that time."  Once a week is forfeited over to RCI, they are technically the owner of that week.  That's why they can rent it or do whatever they want.  By that same principle, once they get an allocation for that week, every year, it's theirs to book.  RCI locks in a reservation with the resort 12 months out for that resort week unit.  Points owners form an agreement with RCI every membership period (2 years out-- in order for the owner to utilize the subsequent year's points) stating their week will be given to RCI in exchange for points.  RCI does not get on the phone 12 months out with the resort to secure a good week with the resort.  They have an established agreement-- they go to the resort management, inform them of the number of weeks they have that have been converted to Points, and they request weeks.  I'm inclined to believe the post from years back that said RCI wanted the 75/25.  In an emerging system, like Points, it's in their best interest to offer the cream of the crop.  There are multiple examples of how RCI has bilked the Weeks system to bolster their Points reputation.  I believe it when I hear they've exercised a little political pull to get an extra push.


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 16, 2010)

Carolinian said:


> Even if there are some fewer people making deposits, there is an exact equivalent number of people making exchanges for those deposits, so for RCI that *should balance itself o*ut...  Indeed with some fewer people from mini-systems making exchanges to those resorts, if the exchange system was run fairly, *then there should be an increase, not a decrease* in availibility at such resorts....


The important message for this thread is that with mini-systems (and other factors) restricting access to desirable inventory (or increasing it for those within a system), people should be rethinking ownership and trading strategies.  Contacting attorney generals is not going to return timesharing back to what it was in the 1980's (when, by the by, the reputation of timesharing was in the absolute gutter). 

*****************

Now the boring stuff.  (Most people can quit reading right now.)

Start with the old addage that 80% of the people want 20% of what is available.  Using an intuitive model, what Carolinian is saying is that if Hapimag, Hilton, and Disney were to pull half of that 20% out of existence and put it into their own mini-systems, that should increase the opportunities for the rest of us to get good inventory (the remaining 10% with 70% of us now pursuing it). Not so.

Looking at this more technically, he is correct that IF the system had been run _totally fairly _- that is, the only people who were previously able to successfully trade for the desired 20% were people who owned units that were part of the 20% - then having half of the desired units pulled out of the inventory would not have any effect on the rest of the system.  The only people who could get the remaining desired inventory would be those who get it before, those who owned units within the top 20%. But looking at past trade tests, hearing how people with good but not outstanding units used to be able to see Disney, the bragging contests that used to occur on TUG with regard to top trades, etc., it is clear that access to the top 20% had not been restricted to just that group.  Given that, if mini-systems start pulling out top inventory (more accurately, if mini-systems give first access to their own members), this will affect what is available to large chunks of exchangers.

[Very technically, something _akin to _a statistical phenomena call regression into mediocrity used to be in effect.  The better your timeshare, the more likely it is that you would trade down.  Intuitively, if you own a timeshare in the top half of a percent, almost any trade you can make is a downward trade.  Meanwhile, those at lower levels have many choices of units that are better than their own. They have more opportunities to trade up.  Point systems are meant to address this phenomena in that when people do trade down, they still have more points to spend.]

Now suppose the mini-systems, etc.  start decreasing the availability of top units or top locations.  (Yes, mini-systems alone do not account for the decreased sightings of top locations or units. There are other factors at work.  Online trading, for example, has also had a great effect in that people, instead of asking to trade to a specific location and taking what they could get, started looking to see what was the most desirable trade that they could make looking all over the map - "Oh,  look, there is a great unit available in Aruba, lets go there. I hadn't even thought of asking for that, but it is the best trade (aka the biggest trade up) available." "Hey, we can get a three bedroom unit, and not just take a one bedroom unit like our own")

As the availability of top units dwindles and owners of the very top end units become more disgruntled, what could RCI do to help keep those remaining people with top units happy ("...make the exchange system run more fairly").  You are not going to like the answer ...  Restrict the opportunities for those with very good units, but not top units to trade up.  (The great devaluation?)


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 16, 2010)

*Control never passes to RCI*



skimble said:


> And, you use the term "the extent to which they OWN that time."  Once a week is forfeited over to RCI, they are technically the owner of that week.  That's why they can rent it or do whatever they want.  By that same principle, once they get an allocation for that week, every year, it's theirs to book.  RCI locks in a reservation with the resort 12 months out for that resort week unit.  Points owners form an agreement with RCI every membership period (2 years out-- in order for the owner to utilize the subsequent year's points) stating their week will be given to RCI in exchange for points.  RCI does not get on the phone 12 months out with the resort to secure a good week with the resort.  They have an established agreement-- they go to the resort management, inform them of the number of weeks they have that have been converted to Points, and they request weeks.  I'm inclined to believe the post from years back that said RCI wanted the 75/25.  In an emerging system, like Points, it's in their best interest to offer the cream of the crop.  There are multiple examples of how RCI has bilked the Weeks system to bolster their Points reputation.  I believe it when I hear they've exercised a little political pull to get an extra push.



The rules of the resort use assignment still apply even if the owner has made an election to deposit with RCI Points for 1-3 years.  RCI cannot and does not go to the resort and request specific deposits - it is the resort/owner handling that process.  RCI NEVER effectively owns the week(s) but has the owners agreement to turn over use rights for XX years and even that can be undone for any given year within a proper request time frame.  It still belongs to the owner.  The mini's may have far more direct control than RCI could ever have as RCI is strictly an option vs some mini's which actually hold the deeds and merely sell RTU to buyers.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 16, 2010)

I would say that purchasing any timeshare with the expectation of getting great exchanges via a 3rd party exchange company is a recipe for disappointment.

The dominant trend in timesharing is to align with multisite resort groups typically based on points.

If you want to purchase a standalone resort, make sure you like going there because the exchange options may be quite limited.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 17, 2010)

BocaBum99 said:


> I would say that purchasing any timeshare with the expectation of getting great exchanges via a 3rd party exchange company is a recipe for disappointment.
> 
> The dominant trend in timesharing is to align with multisite resort groups typically based on points.
> 
> If you want to purchase a standalone resort, make sure you like going there because the exchange options may be quite limited.



There was an industry statistic I posted a year or so ago that refutes that assertion.  As a percentage of timeshare under construction or with consttuction permits approved, the significant majority of it was from independent developers, NOT the chains you mention.

These ''mini-systems'' are FAR too ''mini'' to be that useful.  The future is with the independent exchange companies.


----------



## Mel (Jan 18, 2010)

timeos2 said:


> The rules of the resort use assignment still apply even if the owner has made an election to deposit with RCI Points for 1-3 years.  RCI cannot and does not go to the resort and request specific deposits - it is the resort/owner handling that process.  RCI NEVER effectively owns the week(s) but has the owners agreement to turn over use rights for XX years and even that can be undone for any given year within a proper request time frame.  It still belongs to the owner.  The mini's may have far more direct control than RCI could ever have as RCI is strictly an option vs some mini's which actually hold the deeds and merely sell RTU to buyers.


Moreover, the principle that allows RCI to assign an average point value to a floating week means that the deposits made to RCI must have that same everage point value.  If a resort has 52 owners who have joined Points, and those owners each own a weeks that floats all 52 weeks, then RCI should be given a distribution of weeks reflecting the various trading powers - approaching a situation where they are assigned 1 unit for each week of the year.  In a points mini-system, the members are depositing points, so a specific number of points have to be given to RCI, and there's no requirement for them to be from a set number of weeks, so several low-valued weeks could be given to RCI in place of one good week.  The who reason those low-value weeks are worth less weeks is because owners don't want to use them, so why not place them in RCI?

With floating week resorts, while RCI may value all weeks identically, we all know the reality is they vary, so why no deposit the least desired weeks that qualify for those points levels?  Of course I would hope that RCI would devalue the floating weeks at any resort that does that, but who knows?


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 18, 2010)

Carolinian said:


> There was an industry statistic I posted a year or so ago that refutes that assertion.  As a percentage of timeshare under construction or with consttuction permits approved, the significant majority of it was from independent developers, NOT the chains you mention.
> 
> These ''mini-systems'' are FAR too ''mini'' to be that useful.  The future is with the independent exchange companies.



The industry has virtually shut down as far as any new development goes. What exists and where it is affiliated will be the battleground for the next decade it appears. The minis had been THE biggest source of new inventory for nearly a decade. Note - not a source of new locations but just volume mostly at existing locales. There were a significant number of new locations, usually small to tiny resorts, but those where not the mass numbers of units we saw come on line from 1999-2009.  The majority of that slug of inventory came in through the mini systems. Some are not very "mini" at all. 

The real dead end of any type of trade/multi resort system is too few resorts. A small mini system (20 or less) is practically worthless. Same with the independent exchange companies. Most have so little inventory as to be worse than nothing. It (was) RCI's greatest time, and close to a true golden age for timeshare, when virtually every resort that existed traded with one exchange RCI. Even move about 1/3 to 1/2 as many, with some overlap, to II helped spoil things. Once you start carving out tiny groups of 10 weeks here, 5 there from 25 resorts it is virtually worthless. Which came first the inventory or the trade value? One needs the other and reaching critical mass is tough. Few have done it. Some mini systems have more inventory than the small 3rd party exchange companies.   

Basically what Boca said - buying to trade in a weeks based exchange - is practically a guarantee of dissatisfaction long term with your purchase. It is slightly better with a moni system IF the place they have for internal use are the very ones you desire to use. The best is to buy exactly what you use and don't plan on trade to maximize ownership satisfaction. That was always the real design of timeshare as a replacement for a whole ownership type use without the extra 51 weeks a year to worry about or pay for. Trading was / is a bonus and isn't in anyway a guaranteed process.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 19, 2010)

The statistic I mentioned, which was from a trade publication in the hospitality industry and cited at Street Talk with a link, was based on individual units, not on number of resorts, and the significant majority of them were from independent developers, not timeshare chains.




timeos2 said:


> The industry has virtually shut down as far as any new development goes. What exists and where it is affiliated will be the battleground for the next decade it appears. The minis had been THE biggest source of new inventory for nearly a decade. Note - not a source of new locations but just volume mostly at existing locales. There were a significant number of new locations, usually small to tiny resorts, but those where not the mass numbers of units we saw come on line from 1999-2009.  The majority of that slug of inventory came in through the mini systems. Some are not very "mini" at all.
> 
> The real dead end of any type of trade/multi resort system is too few resorts. A small mini system (20 or less) is practically worthless. Same with the independent exchange companies. Most have so little inventory as to be worse than nothing. It (was) RCI's greatest time, and close to a true golden age for timeshare, when virtually every resort that existed traded with one exchange RCI. Even move about 1/3 to 1/2 as many, with some overlap, to II helped spoil things. Once you start carving out tiny groups of 10 weeks here, 5 there from 25 resorts it is virtually worthless. Which came first the inventory or the trade value? One needs the other and reaching critical mass is tough. Few have done it. Some mini systems have more inventory than the small 3rd party exchange companies.
> 
> Basically what Boca said - buying to trade in a weeks based exchange - is practically a guarantee of dissatisfaction long term with your purchase. It is slightly better with a moni system IF the place they have for internal use are the very ones you desire to use. The best is to buy exactly what you use and don't plan on trade to maximize ownership satisfaction. That was always the real design of timeshare as a replacement for a whole ownership type use without the extra 51 weeks a year to worry about or pay for. Trading was / is a bonus and isn't in anyway a guaranteed process.


----------

