# Must Read Post From An Insider on Timeshare Talk!



## Walt (Jul 19, 2006)

*Just found out that within the next 2 years RCI weeks will be changing. From what it sounds like, they will tell you what your week will be worth monetarily. This will go into your account when you bank. Then you will be able to search to find other vacations. So if they give you 500 dollars for your week but the week in Hawaii you want is 1000 dollars for a week, you would just pay the difference.*


WOW! Is this what RCI is doing To the Weeks members?    


One way or another they will get the Weeks Owners to become part of their Points Program.  



http://www.timesharetalk.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2880&#12127

Walt


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 19, 2006)

And if they use the same screwy valuation system they use for RCI Points, then those with overvalued weeks will flock to this system, and the many with undervalued weeks will bail out and look for greener pastures elsewhere.

This will be a big boost for the business of the independents.


----------



## elaine (Jul 19, 2006)

*that's fine if it goes both ways---but I bet it "costs" more to stay at the resort!*

let's say a GC xmas week Orlando week is given $750 value---wanna bet you can't book into a GC in Orlando for xmas week for $750---most likely RCI will say "oh, that's high demand, GC resort---$1200!!)
I look forward to tuggers doing "trade tests" into each other's resorts to find out if this system is fair or not!!
If it is fair--going and coming, then fine---but fair and RCI??


----------



## Wonka (Jul 19, 2006)

Walt said:
			
		

> *Just found out that within the next 2 years RCI weeks will be changing. From what it sounds like, they will tell you what your week will be worth monetarily. This will go into your account when you bank. Then you will be able to search to find other vacations. So if they give you 500 dollars for your week but the week in Hawaii you want is 1000 dollars for a week, you would just pay the difference.*
> 
> 
> WOW! Is this what RCI is doing To the Weeks members?
> ...



The link doesn't work.  Can you provide another?


----------



## Walt (Jul 19, 2006)

Wonka said:
			
		

> The link doesn't work.  Can you provide another?



http://www.timesharetalk.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2880&#12127

Walt


----------



## philemer (Jul 19, 2006)

I read it on the internet so it must be true! Did the "insider" identify himself?


----------



## Walt (Jul 19, 2006)

philemer said:
			
		

> I read it on the internet so it must be true! *Did the "insider" identify himself? *




Not if he wants to remain an insider!

Maybe it True, maybe not. Maybe it is only an idea at this time. Maybe RCI is just trying to find out what we think of this idea. But is it possible? Why not?

Walt


----------



## geekette (Jul 19, 2006)

Where does this person identify themselves as working for RCI?


----------



## short (Jul 19, 2006)

Is it possible? Yes absolutely. :whoopie: 

Can it be done without someone griping about the numbers?  Absolutely Not!

Some will like it and some will not.  Its just the nature of people.

Possible tieing it to cash $ would be interesting and make trading for cruises and other travel products more predictable and defined.(Not neccesarily a better financial deal but at least understandable.)

Short


----------



## Dave M (Jul 19, 2006)

geekette said:
			
		

> Where does this person identify themselves as working for RCI?


He states "rci employee" in his profile, available to site registrants (just like at TUG) by clicking on his user name. 

He also lists his full name, which, if accurate, will almost certainly doom his future employment at RCI!


----------



## PerryM (Jul 19, 2006)

*The end is near!*

Good news!  RCI reads this chat room and copied my “Dream exchange program” – it too was based on money - rental rack numbers.

I wonder if they will give me a royalty on my copyrights?

If this is true, and who knows, it would be the end for RCI Weeks – since what was described is a Point system.  As much as I love Point systems, I doubt that the RCI Week folks would stand by while the ability to take a Motel 6 type timeshare and upgrade to a Gold Crown would be lost – one of the main reasons Weeks still survives.

I doubt RCI will let this happen – less money for Cendant stock holders.


----------



## JeffW (Jul 19, 2006)

I don't see it happening.  It's basically a quantitative approach to exchanging:  your week is worth X, and to go someplace else costs Y.  Whether the units are points or dollars (and as an international exchange company, tying it to a specific monetary unit would be foolish), what you call it doesn't make a difference.  It's tough to see how it wouldn't be like RCI Points, which hasn't seemed to had the success RCI would have liked.  I don't see why they would want to recreate that under a different name.

Jeff


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 19, 2006)

philemer said:
			
		

> I read it on the internet so it must be true! Did the "insider" identify himself?



I am a moderator on that forum, and he has only started posting recently.  A former poster on that site who said he worked for RCI had his bonafides checked by the site owner.  The site owner asked Anon some specific questions about the site owner's own RCI account that only someone with access to RCI's computers could answer, and Anon came back with all of the right answers.  I do not know if the bonafides of Shagnasty (does he know what ''shag'' means in British slang, I wonder?) have been similarly checked.

Unlike previous RCI employees posting there, Shagnasty seems to be a strong supporter of everything RCI.  That's one aspect that makes his comment that gave rise to this thread particularly interesting.

I would be interested to see the response of Candid, but even more so of Bootleg and Anon.
Unfortunately the last two haven't been around online for a while and the first says he is an ex-employee of RCI, so this may have come along after his time.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 19, 2006)

Dave M said:
			
		

> He states "rci employee" in his profile, available to site registrants (just like at TUG) by clicking on his user name.
> 
> He also lists his full name, which, if accurate, will almost certainly doom his future employment at RCI!



Not anymore . . . He now lists himself as ''unemployed'' along with a name of ''John Smith, age 149''


----------



## PerryM (Jul 19, 2006)

*What's it worth is the key question*

Jeff,

Point systems don’t need Point Calendars – what they need is a number that represents “Worth” of a unit.  I based my Dream Exchange Program on rental rack number which are outside the control of the exchange company.

Once the exchange company starts to determine “Worth” is when the system gets into trouble.  For RCI to determine “Worth” invites distortions and distrust in the system.

I’ve racked my brain and I can only come up with Rental Rack Rates for a unit as an independent determiner of “Worth”.

Basing Worth on US dollars is much better than basing on an arbitrary scale which, again, can be distorted to favor one side in the transaction over the other.

Once Worth is determined and all parties agree to it you have a Point Based System which can bank forward Worth and borrow Worth from future years if need be.


----------



## Iwant2gonow (Jul 19, 2006)

Walt said:
			
		

> *Just found out that within the next 2 years RCI weeks will be changing. From what it sounds like, they will tell you what your week will be worth monetarily. This will go into your account when you bank. Then you will be able to search to find other vacations. So if they give you 500 dollars for your week but the week in Hawaii you want is 1000 dollars for a week, you would just pay the difference.*


I'm still relatively new here at tugs having joined in Dec. or Jan...but isn't this rumor a question for Madge?


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 20, 2006)

Iwant2gonow said:
			
		

> I'm still relatively new here at tugs having joined in Dec. or Jan...but isn't this rumor a question for Madge?


Madge is a great resource but she is not in a position to comment on rumors. If it hasn't been officially announced by RCI she isn't likely to offer any insight.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 20, 2006)

With Madge, you will get the RCI corporate spin.  For a long time, we had a good source of unadulterated info from RCI, the good, the bad and the ugly, who went by the user name of Bootleg.  Bootleg was a very knowledgable RCI employee who was not afraid to tell it like it was.  I very much wish Bootleg were still around here and on Timeshare Forums to offer his insight on this matter.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 20, 2006)

Just a comment on some of the comments...  A number of posters have suggested that this is a "points" program.  Perhaps, but reading the original message it is not like any existing points program.  Looking at the one sparse example, it does not say that you have to stitch together two $500 weeks to afford the $1000 Hawaian week.  It says that you have to pay the cash difference to trade to Hawaii.  In other words, you would still have a "weeks" program, but have to pay in order to "trade up."

My first reaction is that RCI won't do it.  Trading up is what causes people to be devoted to the weeks program.  Mass rebelliion.  

On the other hand, if (as one poster cynically commented on Timeshare Talk -- fully expecting that they would not do this), RCI gave cash back to those who trade down....  Mass chaos.  Obviously those accustomed to using their insights as to how the trading system works in order to negotiate trading up would hate (no, "loath") the concept. Still, if some people were given cash incentives to trade down, they might be open to being bought.  In other words, RCI would be playing to those they have the most incentive to want to attract, the owners of the upper end of the timesharing.

Interesting, but too messy.  I have doubts that RCI would pull the trigger and impliment such a program, but it sure would be exciting to watch.  (Said by someone who would be standing on the sidelines.)

(Sorry, Perry.  This idea goes well beyond anything that you proposed.  No royalties for you.)


----------



## PerryM (Jul 20, 2006)

*They can mail my royalty check to...*

Let’s assume that RCI will do exactly what has been rumored – there is no need to vary the rumor.  (I personally take minimal actions with rumors but do analyze them)

Here’s the rumor I’m working from:

_within the next 2 years RCI weeks will be changing. From what it sounds like, they will tell you what your week will be worth monetarily. This will go into your account when you bank. Then you will be able to search to find other vacations. So if they give you 500 dollars for your week but the week in Hawaii you want is 1000 dollars for a week, you would just pay the difference._

The ONLY reason to do so is to convert the Week program into a Point program – why change it otherwise.  Dollars are dollars – pennies, nickels, quarters, etc.  This is a perfectly good Point system.  The trick is to relate the “Wroth” of the unit to real money – the only way I know is based on rental value of the unit.  If RCI gets into cooking up “Worth” with secret formulas they are right back to the existing system.

I can’t think of a single reason why there should be a $500 and a $400 in your “Bank” especially if a member can add money and trade up.  What’s the difference between adding cash and adding another timeshare?  None that I can think of.

So I would expect that the new Point system is exactly as I described in my “Dream Exchange Program” – carry the balance foreword and combine with future deposits, add cash to get a unit that costs more, etc.

Of course the interesting part is if a member adds cash to upgrade – just where does that cash go and what is done with it?

With this Point system RCI Points could be folded in and have just one program again.


----------



## geekette (Jul 20, 2006)

Dave M said:
			
		

> He states "rci employee" in his profile, available to site registrants (just like at TUG) by clicking on his user name.
> 
> He also lists his full name, which, if accurate, will almost certainly doom his future employment at RCI!



Thank you, I'm not a registered user on that site, and maybe not the only one curious about this.  

Did see the other post about the quick change to Unemployed.  ha ha ha

Shall I check Want Ads for RCI this weekend??


----------



## geekette (Jul 20, 2006)

*Re: They can mail my royalty check to...*



			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> Let’s assume that RCI will do exactly what has been rumored – there is no need to vary the rumor.  (I personally take minimal actions with rumors but do analyze them)
> 
> Here’s the rumor I’m working from:
> 
> ...



What am I missing:  why would I pay the trade up cash to RCI instead of just finding someone that wants to rent out their unit?  The trust factor looms large.  In this scenario, the only incentives I see for an owner to stay with RCI are:

It's easier that way 
More resorts available (maybe not true, but from a regular owner perspective)


----------



## CaliDave (Jul 20, 2006)

*Re: They can mail my royalty check to...*

I can't imagine RCI would be this stupid to go to a mandatory points program.
I would cancel my membership in a heartbeat. 

Points seems to be failing miserably, I think RCI needs to go back to what made it so successful.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 20, 2006)

*Re: They can mail my royalty check to...*



			
				CaliDave said:
			
		

> I can't imagine RCI would be this stupid to go to a mandatory points program.
> I would cancel my membership in a heartbeat.
> 
> Points seems to be failing miserably, I think RCI needs to go back to what made it so successful.



I agree completely.  But, your little dose of truth is likely to instigate a firestorm from certain regular posters, whose user names anyone who follows these boards could easily predict.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 20, 2006)

*No more RCI fees - ever again!*

Dave,

I’m just trying to show how a Point system would fit the rumor.  Would I want Weeks to go Points?  NO!!!

If Weeks went Points I would not be able to take a crummy unit and trade up to a Gold Crown!  (I personally don’t use Weeks but that’s what many here would argue).

However, what we want is immaterial to the undisputed leader in the timeshare world – RCI.  RCI’s stockholders are really what’s important here and I can only guess which way they would lean.  The goal is to increase their net worth and RCI can accomplish this many ways:

1)	Increase membership fees and transaction fees
2)	Increase the number of transactions
3)	Completely turn the exchange industry on it’s head

I favor #3 – let me explain why.

If Weeks went the way of the rumor there can use a completely different way of calculating fees – just eliminate them all together!

*RCI would immediately make ALL exchanges FREE!!! * Yes, you pay no exchange fees anymore *nor do you ever pay yearly fees*.  How about that!



Here’s how RCI could do it:

If RCI goes the way of my “Dream Exchange Program” I left out some key components that they could implement – namely a percentage of all exchange values is charged instead of a flat transaction fee.

Since the “Worth” of a timeshare is now what RCI could realistically expect to get in rental income they could do the following:

I deposit my Gold Crown and it’s worth $1,000 RCI.  I then deposit a Silver Crown and it’s worth $700, I now have a balance of $1,700 in my account.

I see a GC Maui for $2,500 and I’ve got to have it so I use PayPal and deposit $800 in my account and get the Hawaiian vacation of a lifetime.

*The cost to me?  ZERO*.  RCI didn’t charge me a penny.  I no longer pay any yearly membership fees either.

Wow, what a company!  Sign me up today.


Do you see how RCI can make so much money that their stock holders will throw a party?  NO?  Missed it?  Oh, I left out one little fact:

20% of all deposits are moved to the RCI slush fund!  So when I deposited my GC worth $1,000 it really had a rental value of $1,250 (Which I didn’t know and is one of those RCI secrets again) and $1,000 went into my account and $250 went into RCI slush fund.

Same with everyone’s deposits.  That Hawaiian GC which cost me $2,500 really had a rental value of $3,125 and the owner got $2,500 and the RCI slush fund got $625.

Of course the millions of dollars in the slush fund will be used by RCI to “purchase” reservations it wants and will rent to the public again.  However this time RCI will have a much better understanding of what needs to be rented.  If the slush fund has $1 M then there is a very good likelihood that $1 M will be generated by fewer units than is needed now.  This is a plus for the owners!

Everyone wins – the owners never pay a penny to RCI and RCI’s stock holders make even more money!  A win-win if I ever saw one.

So why stop the commission at 20%?  Hmmmm


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 20, 2006)

Again, we have the award status fallacy.  That is but a secondary driver of demand.  Location, location, and location are the main driver.  If the GC is in the cornfields of Iowa or some other non-descript location, and the bare bones standard resort is in central London or on a beach on St. Barths, the GC is going to be far below the standard on exchange demand, rental rate, and any other criteria you can think of.

On the OBX the lowest demanded resort, and the one that brings the lowest rental rates is a Gold Crown that happens to be the resort farthest off the beach.  Owners there price their rentals $100 less than standard resorts on the beach but still cannot rent them unless all of the units at the standard resorts on the beach are taken.  That resort also happens to be the newest resort on the OBX and the only one that is still building.  Location is always going to trump award status with most timesharers.  Once location factors are reasonably similar, then award status does come into play but not before.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 21, 2006)

*Rumor = RCI Registry Collection + dollar sign*

Isn't this rumor just the RCI Registry Collection with just adding a dollar sign ($) in front of the points?

Link: http://www.theregistrycollection.com/how_to_exchange/exchange_grid/


----------



## Cayuga (Jul 24, 2006)

*Re: They can mail my royalty check to...*



			
				CaliDave said:
			
		

> I can't imagine RCI would be this stupid to go to a mandatory points program.
> I would cancel my membership in a heartbeat.
> 
> Points seems to be failing miserably, I think RCI needs to go back to what made it so successful.




What evidence do you have that "points seem to be failing miserably"!!?


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 24, 2006)

*Re: They can mail my royalty check to...*



			
				Cayuga said:
			
		

> What evidence do you have that "points seem to be failing miserably"!!?



While you are questioning another TUgger's statement (which statement I happen to concur with), I would point you to California timeshare veteran Byron Wiegand's article ''Points Revisited'' in Timesharing Today.


----------



## CaliDave (Jul 24, 2006)

*Re: They can mail my royalty check to...*

Grand Pacific Resorts in So Cal has the majority of top So Cal RCI resorts. 
One of there resorts decided to "beta test" RCI points and it didn't get a good response. None of the other resorts will be going with RCI points anytime soon.

The newest resort they are building, they decided to team up with Hilton. 

It seems that there are a few hard core RCI points advocates and they haven't added many Tug converts in the past couple years. 
If the product was that great, I would think Tuggers would be on the leading edge and buying RCI points left and right.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 24, 2006)

On the contrary from what I've seen the interest and conversion to points - even at existing resorts - is going quite well. At one resort I own they are using RCI Points to help move inventory that has been a tough sell due to seasonal issues. It's just getting started but the interest both for unsold inventory and conversion of existing weeks to the RCI Points system has been high. 

At the other resort we are prevented from offering RCI Points due to an agreement with a competing system. I know for a fact that there have been at least 1/2 dozen purchases of an inexpensive points resort to allow the owners to use PFD rather than RCI Weeks.  If it was such a so-called failure I doubt people would be making the effort and spending the money to buy another resort just to get in.  Plus the amount of people posting that they are buying or have bought into RCI Points here and on other timeshare sites seems to reflect not only a strong interest but the willingness to join.  

About the only negative I've heard, and I agree, is the majority of the resorts looking to convert present owners are charging too much.  If they would be reasonable with that cost the conversion rate would skyrocket overnight.


----------



## CaliDave (Jul 24, 2006)

Possibly the problem with the So Cal resorts is that point grid is unfair. 
These resorts are among the highest demanded and the point values seem less than many resorts in overbuilt Orlando. I know I wouldn't convert my So Cal weeks for free, based on the point values given. 

An ebay auction recently ended for a non summer Laguna Surf, Ca.  It was a 1bd unit and was converted to RCI points and got around 30K points. MF's in the $550 range.
It sold for over $4K on ebay. I don't think the high value was for the points, it was for the high demanded underlying week.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 24, 2006)

Byron Wiegand's article observes that the conversion of resorts to RCI Points in California had ground to a halt, with the vast majority remaining in the Weeks camp, and that many of the points conversion brokers at resorts that had gone points were getting out of the business as their volume was falling off.  Wiegand started out on the fence on RCI Points, writing a ''let's wait and see'' article on RCI Points back when it was still called GPN, but now he says the jury is back and it is thumbs down.

You might also look at Australia, where quite a few resorts that had joined RCI Points have now bailed out and returned to RCI Weeks.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 24, 2006)

CaliDave said:
			
		

> Possibly the problem with the So Cal resorts is that point grid is unfair.
> These resorts are among the highest demanded and the point values seem less than many resorts in overbuilt Orlando. I know I wouldn't convert my So Cal weeks for free, based on the point values given.
> 
> An ebay auction recently ended for a non summer Laguna Surf, Ca.  It was a 1bd unit and was converted to RCI points and got around 30K points. MF's in the $550 range.
> It sold for over $4K on ebay. I don't think the high value was for the points, it was for the high demanded underlying week.



I agree that Orlando weeks have way too many points attached.  A two-bedroom Gold Crown purchase on Kauai gets the same number of points as a purchase at GC Vacation Village at Parkway.  Those numbers for Orlando weeks are outrageous because you have to pay so many points for a Gold Crown, even in the off-season times of fall and winter.  No way are all those weeks red, no matter what the salesmen say.    

The hardest trades are to Hawaii, no matter what time of year, so how can Orlando GC even compare to Hawaii GC?  I can pull HGVC weeks in fall and winter at both Orlando resorts with my BLUE week.  No one can tell me that Orlando is always red.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 25, 2006)

Vacation Village at Parkway was one of the two Gold Crown resorts in Orlando that RCI employee Bootleg told us had the largest oversupply in all of the RCI system.  If points numbers had anything whatsoever to do with supply and demand, it would have a points allocation that is a small fraction of Hawaii or SoCal beach.  It is things like this that make me turn up my nose at the corrupt numbers racket of RCI Points.  Numbers are set by pandering to certain developers still in sales rather than the real market as shown by supply and demand.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 25, 2006)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> I agree that Orlando weeks have way too many points attached.  A two-bedroom Gold Crown purchase on Kauai gets the same number of points as a purchase at GC Vacation Village at Parkway....



One thing that you are forgetting here is that the Vacation Villiages are lock-outs.  I can't give you the exact number, but I checked several years ago as to how much more lockouts were worth than single units with the points system.  (The total number of points given to a two bedroom unit is always the same as the number of points for depositing the two units separately.)  The number came out to be something like the units were worth 33% to 40%more than comparable two bedrooms in the same area.  You have to factor this in when comparing Vacation Villiage to Kauai.

(By the way, I have looked at a number of lockouts for trades.  I have rarely seen RCI offer the two bedrooms as a single unit.  Thus, they end up making money on two trades.  I guess if they are going to do that, the owner who deposited the unit is entitled to some reward.)


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 25, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Vacation Village at Parkway was one of the two Gold Crown resorts in Orlando that RCI employee Bootleg told us had the largest oversupply in all of the RCI system.  If points numbers had anything whatsoever to do with supply and demand, ....



Two comments:  First, it is not clear how "supply and demand" is used for resorts in sales.  RCI says it considers "supply and demand" for both the inidividual resort and the region where the resort is found.  If the former is a substantial factor for new resorts, then every owner of a timeshare in development would be getting slammed in that developers are always turning over unused units to RCI (and SFX and...); thus creating a lot of supply.  Thus, owners of units at timeshares that are in sales would always be at a disadvantage.  Are you saying this is how supply and demand works... it puts any owner at a new resort at a disadvantage?  (Interesting)

Also, don't forget that the rental market has a bearing on how many points RCI assigns to a unit.  This is how they pay for Points for Product.  (I hope you aren't suggesting that they should not factor in the rental worth of a unit... that would allow RCI to pocket any windfall profits when a rental market is stronger than what timeshares trade for in an area.)


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 25, 2006)

Family is what vacation is all about, and what better location for family than Disneyworld, so that is why the weeks at VV are in oversupply.  Who is going to grab those high-priced units, split in two by RCI for exchange purposes, when they can get something else with two bedrooms for much less.  Not a good place for lockouts.  We can use the one bedrooms, but we are exceptional.  Most adults in their 50's desire different types of vacations.  I would rather visit the mouse.  

The best points deal in Orlando is the Cypress Harbour at 38,000 points.  Why would I take a two bedroom anywhere else?


----------



## CaliDave (Jul 25, 2006)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> The best points deal in Orlando is the Cypress Harbour at 38,000 points.  Why would I take a two bedroom anywhere else?



I'm sure you can get plenty for 9,000


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 25, 2006)

There were lots last night, three bedrooms at GC's were the best picks, only 7500 points, not even 9,000.  What a deal.

I would bet that will go away soon.  No way is RCI going to allow us to wait until last minute to grab our off season weeks.  There were so many, enough to cover any date you would want, so you wouldn't have to buy airfare last minute, either.  Why would RCI keep offering that, when so many of us have figured out the system.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 25, 2006)

Supply is simply the number of units availible.  Period.
Demand is simply the number of units requested.  Period.
Anything else is manipulating the system.

The rental market should have NO bearing on value, as RCI should NOT be in the rental market PERIOD.  It is s HUGE conflict of interest.  RCI should not be polluting the exchange system with non-timeshare goods and services (often from other Cendant companies).  Hopefully the class action lawsuit will clean up this rape of the exchange system.





			
				Roger said:
			
		

> Two comments:  First, it is not clear how "supply and demand" is used for resorts in sales.  RCI says it considers "supply and demand" for both the inidividual resort and the region where the resort is found.  If the former is a substantial factor for new resorts, then every owner of a timeshare in development would be getting slammed in that developers are always turning over unused units to RCI (and SFX and...); thus creating a lot of supply.  Thus, owners of units at timeshares that are in sales would always be at a disadvantage.  Are you saying this is how supply and demand works... it puts any owner at a new resort at a disadvantage?  (Interesting)
> 
> Also, don't forget that the rental market has a bearing on how many points RCI assigns to a unit.  This is how they pay for Points for Product.  (I hope you aren't suggesting that they should not factor in the rental worth of a unit... that would allow RCI to pocket any windfall profits when a rental market is stronger than what timeshares trade for in an area.)


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 25, 2006)

THey have to do something with all of that oversupply.  THat is why just about any blue week will trade into there so easily.  And they call this all red??????  If they were honest with their system, much of it would be colored blue.  The problem is that anything RCI publishes is corrupted by developers, whether it be color codes or point numbers.





			
				rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> There were lots last night, three bedrooms at GC's were the best picks, only 7500 points, not even 9,000.  What a deal.
> 
> I would bet that will go away soon.  No way is RCI going to allow us to wait until last minute to grab our off season weeks.  There were so many, enough to cover any date you would want, so you wouldn't have to buy airfare last minute, either.  Why would RCI keep offering that, when so many of us have figured out the system.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 26, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Supply is simply the number of units availible.  Period.
> Demand is simply the number of units requested.  Period.
> Anything else is manipulating the system..


So your contention is that someone buying a new unit at a new resort (perhaps one that is not even listed in the RCI directory) should be given ZERO trading power (or at least a ZERO for resort popularity in the trading power equation) in that no units for that resort are currently being requested.  Furthermore, that when developers deposit their unsold inventory, that this should undermine the trading power of anyone who has bought at the resort.  Interesting.  

That would sure help spur the resale market in that anyone buying at a new resort would be heavily penalized for owning new (low trading power).  It would also spur the independents.  I am _absolutely positive _that they would not impliment this policy.

Apart from your recommendation, what is the actual manner in which RCI treats new resorts with developers depositing unsold units?  You often say that the Weeks system is superior in that it is run by supply and demand, but I after reading your message I am confused by what this actually means.  Are you saying that they actually give new owners poor trading power because there is currently an oversupply at their resorts?  Or, is the manner in which supply and demand works as hidden as the assigment of points?  (Please answer.)


			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> The rental market should have NO bearing on value, as RCI should NOT be in the rental market PERIOD.  It is s HUGE conflict of interest.  RCI should not be polluting the exchange system with non-timeshare goods and services (often from other Cendant companies).  Hopefully the class action lawsuit will clean up this rape of the exchange system.


Also interesting.  While I am not a fan of the points from products offers (never used them) reports are that 30% of the points are used in this fashion.  Your position is that if someone wants use part of the value of their timeshare for (lets us say) an airline ticket, a company should legally be prohibited from offering this as an option. Shouldn't customers and companies be free to decide what to buy and sell?  (Isn't this America?)


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 26, 2006)

Roger, I think anyone that buys in Orlando is making a huge mistake.  If there is one spot on earth that RCI and II have an oversupply, it is Orlando.  The exchange companies and developers decided at some point that all Orlando is going to be red, so the developers used that to entice sales.  A large amount of land and greedy companies saw this as an opportunity to make some big bucks.  Before all the resorts were built in Orlando, there was more demand than supply, even in 1991 when we traded into the area with our mountain weeks, but now the opposite is true.  

RCI and II are the determiners of value within their system and the value is down for Orlando, obvious by the resales.  But now they can't go back to buyers and say, this area is no longer red all year long, so we are going to show your week as blue, but they do reduce the trading power of their weeks.  These poor souls search the RCI site for weeks that they never see, the same weeks that I cannot get with my blue week.  Sad to say, this is the way it is.  They were duped!

I worry that RCI will take some drastic measure with our 7500 point, last minute exchanges to Orlando.  Inventory has increased for low point weeks, partly due to the fact that points owners are waiting for last-minute availability instead of paying full points for weeks, which is the way to work the system.  I expect them to increase points needed for those weeks.  I also expect them to reduce point values in Orlando during off season.   I will never pay 79000 points for a week I can grab with a BLUE week (in the weeks system) worth only 21,500 points in PFD.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 26, 2006)

Cindy,

I don't think there is much disagreement between us.  No, I would never buy a timeshare in Orlando.  That having been said...

A lot of families don't and cannot afford to own a timeshare, but do make, what for them, is a major, major, family trip to Orlando to see Disneyworld.  These families would die (well, not die, but pay) to stay in a timeshare rather than a hotel.  (Consider a hotel room with two or three kids in tow.)  RCI can rent a timeshare to them and use the profits to support points for products.  Given the oversupply of timeshares in the area, this does not hurt the timesharing community.  

Now, given that the RENTAL market is decent, should RCI take a deposited unit from Oralnad and calculate how many points to give the owner purely on the value of the unit within timesharing (ignoring that they will rent many of these units)?  They would reap huge windfall profits if they did this  Or, should they give the points owners some of that value in terms of Points?  They appear to be doing the latter by "overpointing" these resorts and that would be the proper thing to do.

Similar considerations apply to lockouts.  I have seen one lockout regularly available, but always in a one bedroom configuration.  In other words, RCI tries to push the units broken up.  I am sure that this is motivated by profit (greed, if you will) -- they get more exchange fees.  So, if someone in Points owns a lockout, should RCI keep the extra fees from two exchanges as excessive profits?  Or, should they let the owner of a lockout share the by extending them extra points?

Actually, the question matters little.  Owners of lockouts are going to see what how many points are needed to garner two trades into the separate parts of their lockout and demand that they be given the same number of points.  RCI realizes this and simply gives owners the total points that it would cost an outsider to reserve the separate units.

I would really be surprised if RCI downgrades the trading power of any INDIVIDUAL resort simply because it is in sales and they get units from the developer. 

I know you own at Bali Hai.  It will be in development for the next umpteen years.  I am sure that RCI gets unsold units from Pahio.  Do you really think that you should be punished, either in trading power or points, for that?  That is what Carolinian is saying SHOULD happen (or, at least, that would be the outcome if what he recommends in his recent posting were policy).  I don't think people should be punished for owning at resorts still in sales.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 26, 2006)

Roger, we bought resale so cannot be in RCI points at PAHIO, unfortunately.  There is no glut of Hawaii timeshares yet, even when the developers dump weeks into the system, nor will there be any time soon.  That is the difference.  There is only a little off-season time in Hawaii but those weeks are mostly gone, you cannot count on getting 9,000 point weeks in Hawaii, but you CAN count on getting low point weeks in Orlando.  7,500 points for a week that would cost 79,000 if booked early?  The system is messed up. 

I feel badly that Orlando developers are selling these poor, uninformed people on timeshare, even worse that they are promising the highest possible trading power for their weeks.  Points is such a complicated system that I cannot imagine anyone sitting at a first-time presentation and understanding what they are being told by a scumbag salesperson.  I understand timeshare very well and was completely lost when I heard about the RCI points system the first time.  I cannot imagine a newbie going into such a presentation and believing everything they are told.  How do salesmen sleep at night?

Off-season weeks should be lower points in Orlando, otherwise people like me and many others are going to wait to get those low points weeks.  Plenty have been available all summer, I have watched every night.   Hawaii weeks are a different story.  

We do own points through our Aussie timeshare, but our points cost is lower than most, only .0076.  PAHIO's are at .009 (approximately).  We can deposit our Colorado weeks as PFD for about that same price and have a total of 250,000+ points every year.  We choose not to do that but may change, if last-minute exchanges become more available.  I may have to sell some points, if it works the way I want.  

Someone chastized me for being so naive as to suggest that RCI and II watch these boards for ideas.  I truly believe they do watch our posts, so I am in danger of informing RCI about my future plans for my points, using them only for last-minute exchanges.  Well, so be it.  They need to know that their program is not working.  Although they are getting more exchange fees per person that way.  

When my nephew and niece asked for advice on a timeshare purchase, I could not give them any one piece, only lots of ideas.  They walked away, totally confused and are just getting weeks through me, with Extra Vacations.  It's working for them, which is great, but I don't know what to say to them the next time they ask.  That is the problem with timeshare, plus it changes so often, especially RCI.


----------



## lawgs (Jul 26, 2006)

cindy

where do you find these instant exchanges once you have signed into your rci points account?

we have looked high and low on the website but cannot find where to explore this "perk" of our new points account

RCI guides are less than helpful

thanks in advance


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 26, 2006)

Last minute points exchanges are done by logging into points, then going to Weeks Reservations.  Just put in an area, Orlando for example, then search 5 weeks.  Leave the date as it is.  You will find lots for Orlando, but I don't search other areas.  I did see some Hawaii night before last and was surprised.  Do Orlando as a test, then try other areas.  Orlando is easy to get lately.  

It is not Carolinian and I devaluing Orlando, it is the system that RCI and Orlando created as a cooperation between exchange company and developers.  It is Frankenstein and RCI is the mad scientist.  The developers are Igors.


----------



## ira g (Jul 26, 2006)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> Roger, we bought resale so cannot be in RCI points at PAHIO, unfortunately.  There is no glut of Hawaii timeshares yet, even when the developers dump weeks into the system, nor will there be any time soon.  That is the difference.  There is only a little off-season time in Hawaii but those weeks are mostly gone, you cannot count on getting 9,000 point weeks in Hawaii, but you CAN count on getting low point weeks in Orlando.  7,500 points for a week that would cost 79,000 if booked early?  The system is messed up.
> 
> I feel badly that Orlando developers are selling these poor, uninformed people on timeshare, even worse that they are promising the highest possible trading power for their weeks.  Points is such a complicated system that I cannot imagine anyone sitting at a first-time presentation and understanding what they are being told by a scumbag salesperson.  I understand timeshare very well and was completely lost when I heard about the RCI points system the first time.  I cannot imagine a newbie going into such a presentation and believing everything they are told.  How do salesmen sleep at night?
> 
> ...


I believe RCI is very smart with their 7500-9000 point exchange. They are getting $149 and soon to be $164 for each low point exchange. If you have a unit worth 75,000 points and exchange for 10 exchanges at 7500 each, it generates $1490 and soon to be $1640 for RCI. This may be even smarter for them than selling units  on extra vacations. Any thoughts?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 26, 2006)

I agree with you, Ira.  But it is the timeshare owners who are having their weeks devalued.  One OLCC owner is very upset that I can get a 7,500 points exchange into a 3 bedroom unit for a total outlay of just $225.  Do you think I am going to mind paying $240 for the same when the RCI fee goes up.  No way.  This does cut into their rentals.  RCI used to offer these weeks as Last Call to everyone, but only points members get the great deals now.  They were making more money on Last Call.  This is the first step in pushing weeks members toward points.  

So OLCC's solution is to start a new points system, yet a different type, as though we don't have enough mini-points systems already, complete with different rules, catering to the owners at OLCC, but for a price.   

There are so many points systems now that I don't understand why OLCC didn't just call up Shell or Bluegreen.  Shell caters to the west, mostly Arizona, California and Hawaii.  That system may have welcomed OLCC, I have no way of knowing, but they are choosing to start their own.  Could be good for OLCC, but I don't see how it can benefit current owners much, unless they are willing to open their pocketbooks.  If OLCC salesguys are going to get owners to pay a fee of $1K or more, plus a yearly fee, then OLCC owners ought to buy several weeks and get all of their weeks "converted"  for one fee. 

I met a gal who owns a week 26 at OLCC in the Golf Villas.  She and I have compared our trade power, my Colorado mountain week, Silver Crown, to her GC OLCC week.  She cannot pull anything in Hawaii for the next two years, nor can she pull many of the other Orlando resorts.  She pulls stuff mostly in the off season.  She bought from OLCC in 1991 and uses her week most of the time.  She is sure sorry she deposited it with RCI the last two years.  so much for her saleswoman's claims that Orlando is the number 1 vacation destination and will get her anywhere she wants to go.


----------



## lawgs (Jul 27, 2006)

thanks for your quick reply cindy

for some reason no matter what i try there, i just get No matches please addjust your criteria and search again

RCI guide  did not even know how to do this ( said they are not trained )

oh well maybe tomorrow will be able to search for OLCC for 7500 it will sure beat extra vacation at 494 for a week there

wonder how long before OLCC stops giving the gem weeks to RCI ( considering their new points program values a week 52 as 80000~ rci points in the west village ) hope the OLCC weeks do not dry up into "points weeks"



smilawgs


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 27, 2006)

Lawgs, you should see exactly what I see.  You cannot go into Points Reservations, you must go into Weeks reservations within the RCI points system.  I just leave the date as 8/6 and search 5 weeks out.  Are you looking for Orlando?  You should pull 24 different resorts with lots of choices.


----------



## Liz Wolf-Spada (Jul 27, 2006)

I am not impressed with RCI points, although at some point in time we might look at another point system, which to me makes more sense. I like weeks because they are easy to deal with, a week for a week. Value is relative and no one every pays rack rates on hotels, so that isn't a good comparision either. There is no way to adequately compare on an objective basis a glorious two bedroom resort in a beautiful rural area with a tiny, but well done studio or one bedroom in a city location. Location is a big issue, size, number of bedrooms, if its a place you want to go, what time of year it is, all of this figures into each decision and a great trade for me might sound like a lousy trade to you or vice versa. Going to pay my SA fees and maybe I should look into DAE for them and join II and keep using SFX and cut RCI loose completely as they seem to be abandoning the original premise of timesharing, buy a week, use it or trade for a different week somewhere else.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 27, 2006)

Supply, simply, is what it is.  Same with demand.

I think you are overlooking the fact that many exchange company requests are for regions rather than specific resorts, and such requests would seem to automatically be factored into demand for all resorts in that region.  If an exchange company fails to do this their model is flawed.

Developers sometimes do some stupid things that hurt supply and demand factors, including bulkbanking.  Any honest exchange system has to deal with REAL supply and REAL demand, however.  





			
				Roger said:
			
		

> Two comments:  First, it is not clear how "supply and demand" is used for resorts in sales.  RCI says it considers "supply and demand" for both the inidividual resort and the region where the resort is found.  If the former is a substantial factor for new resorts, then every owner of a timeshare in development would be getting slammed in that developers are always turning over unused units to RCI (and SFX and...); thus creating a lot of supply.  Thus, owners of units at timeshares that are in sales would always be at a disadvantage.  Are you saying this is how supply and demand works... it puts any owner at a new resort at a disadvantage?  (Interesting)
> 
> Also, don't forget that the rental market has a bearing on how many points RCI assigns to a unit.  This is how they pay for Points for Product.  (I hope you aren't suggesting that they should not factor in the rental worth of a unit... that would allow RCI to pocket any windfall profits when a rental market is stronger than what timeshares trade for in an area.)


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 27, 2006)

Again, many requests to RCI are for regions rather than specific resorts, and those would seem to cover ALL resorts in that region, even the new one, so there WOULD be demand for a new resort unless it was in a region that nobody requested (not exactly likely!).

Supply is what it is.  If a developer acts in a way that is adverse to its owners, the owners should deal with that developer, not expect the exchange company to ignore the real supply situation.

In the Points Partners situation, RCI is degrading its primary product, timeshare exchanges, by diverting prime inventory to pay for Points Partner products, something that is very secondary.  Even worse they are diverting WEEKS inventory to do this and Weeks owners cannot even use the Points Partners.  This is a huge fraud by RCI on its Weeks owners, that hopefully the class action lawsuits will clean up.  Weeks members, in particular are being cheated by the Points Partner scam, and RCI should be brought to book for it.  Is it the American way to cheat one set of customers in order to provide some overpriced fluff for another groups of customers?  I don't thnk so!

These secondary ''choices'' that exist from polluting the exchange system with non-timeshare goods and services degrade the choices for the primary product, timeshare shares, by diverting inventory to pay for the secondary choices.  Those secondary choices are a huge negative for those members (the other 70%) who are in the system for its primary function, timeshare exchanges.  The very existance of Points Partners has been one of my big objections to RCI Points from the time they first rolled it out as GPN.  Since many of these Points Partners are Cendant companies, a big part of the reason for Points Partners is to abuse the timeshare exchange system to market other Cendant products.  Of course they throw in some others, like air tickets to make it a little less obvious what they are doing.




			
				Roger said:
			
		

> So your contention is that someone buying a new unit at a new resort (perhaps one that is not even listed in the RCI directory) should be given ZERO trading power (or at least a ZERO for resort popularity in the trading power equation) in that no units for that resort are currently being requested.  Furthermore, that when developers deposit their unsold inventory, that this should undermine the trading power of anyone who has bought at the resort.  Interesting.
> 
> That would sure help spur the resale market in that anyone buying at a new resort would be heavily penalized for owning new (low trading power).  It would also spur the independents.  I am _absolutely positive _that they would not impliment this policy.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Jul 27, 2006)

*Consumer activism won't get you your dream vacation*

Supply and demand are in the eye of the beholder.

The Orlando owner who paid big bucks and has little supply but in huge demand might not be able to get to exchange into an Orlando resort with RCI's Orlando exchange restrictions.  This is no problem with RCI's Point system – the secret formulas and hidden restrictions exist no more.

Consumers are better served learning the strengths and weaknesses of the resort and third party companies they might use (the exchange companies).  Consumer activism isn’t going to get you that super vacation your family wants, it just makes the lawyers rich.

RCI seems to have decided that the RCI Points system is to pick the bones of the RCI weeks system – as a consumer you must use this fact to your advantage.  If Orlando resorts are being given preference equal to Hawaiian resorts then take advantage of it.  If RCI Points can get you to places the RCI Weeks folks dream about then you must switch.  If your HOA has decided to screw you out of thousands of dollars to convert to RCI Points then find a developer who treats his customers with dignity.

There are very simple solutions to all the problems brought up with RCI Weeks:
1)	Use Weeks to get easy upgrades
2)	Use Points to take advantage of the Week system
3)	If you don’t like 1 & 2 then rent

Easy solutions which take advantage of existing conditions will get you to your dream vacation instead of the inside of a court room with expensive lawyers that you will pay dearly for.


----------



## lawgs (Jul 27, 2006)

cindy 

thank you for your reply

we cannot see anything on any of the searches we are doing....in Weeks from RCI Points Account

VG says it is a internet problem we are experiencing but then how are you getting searches

he suggests the email route NOT!!

will keep trying


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 27, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Supply, simply, is what it is.  Same with demand.
> 
> I think you are overlooking the fact that many exchange company requests are for regions rather than specific resorts, and such requests would seem to automatically be factored into demand for all resorts in that region.  If an exchange company fails to do this their model is flawed.
> 
> Developers sometimes do some stupid things that hurt supply and demand factors, including bulkbanking.  Any honest exchange system has to deal with REAL supply and REAL demand, however.


I am afraid that I am still puzzled by the mysteries of "supply and demand" -- at least as it applies to timeshares.  

RCI lists "supply and demand" for the _individual resort _and "supply and demand" for resorts in _the region _as separate factors affecting one's trading power.

Can a resort have no individual demand?  How much does that affect the trading power at that resort?  (How much weight is put on individual demand versus regional demand?)

With regard to regional demand, if there are ten resorts in an area (three GC's; three SC's; two non rated on the beach; and two non rated away from the beach), and lots of people put in requests for "the region", how does an "honest" exchange company divide up the demand factor?  Is it divied up by the number of units that every place provided (so that the mega developer gets the lion's share of the demand factor)?  Does the non-rated motel conversion that no one wants get credit?

Suppose a developer spaces out his or her deposits (no bulk spacebank).  Still, there is a lot of supply for that resort.  I've asked this already, but would an "honest" exchange company penalize an owner of a new resort because there is a lot of supply for that resort?  What does RCI do?  (Are they an "honest" exchange system -- I am talking about their Weeks system.)

Finally (actually I am sure that there are lots of other questions when you begin to explore the issues), suppose mega-developer does a mega bulk spacebank.  We know that the trading power for that resort takes a dip.  Since RCI's stated policy is that they consider "supply and demand" for a region (and I have been accused of overlooking this), does that mean every owner in the whole region takes a hit for oversupply?

The bottom line is that "supply and demand" is an utter mystery.  The best solution is published values.  Then every owner can make informed decisions as to what to do in their own case.  Short of that, we don't know what an "honest" exchange company does, nor, whether any given exchange company merits that label.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 27, 2006)

*Time share owners that trade weeks mushrooms of commerce*

It is a total fallacy to say that secret valuation and ever changing, but secret, supply and demand values benefit the owners of timeshares. It is never a benefit to anyone but those that control the system to have unknown factors.  That so many for so long have accepted being in the dark about values that they try to utilize for good trades shows just how uninformed even the slickest of timeshare users tend to be. Some are sharp in recognizing where the flaws are - that group tends to frequent this type of timeshare group - but most are in the dark when they buy, when they trade and when they sell or give up.  But even those that manage to extract decent trades are doing so blind and if things changed tomorrow by edict of the exchange company they use they wouldn't have a clue until they failed to get what they expected.  I cannot think of any other market place that people would accept being uninformed not only as the norm but an part of the process.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 27, 2006)

I loved your last sentence, John.  Well said.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 27, 2006)

*Re: Consumer activism won't get you your dream vacation*

I don't think any ecomomist would agree with you that ''supply and demand are in the eye of the beholder''. 

There is a big problem with RCI's Point System - that numbers racket in thoroughly corrupt in number assignment.  While RCI panders to developers still in sales, they are simultaneously giving a sinister double meaning to the term ''sold out resort''.

You have it backwards on Orlando. Don't you remember Bootleg's posts?  Orlando has a huge oversupply, not ''little supply''.

Yes, consumers can take on big companies and win when big companies try to change their policies to hose consumers.  The self-styled ''cockroaches'' caused US Airways to reverse a package of consumer unfriendly ff changes in a matter of weeks.  The www.saveskymiles.com campaign at Delta took a couple of years, but also caused Delta to reverse consumer unfriendly ff changes.

The best way to tackle the rape of the Weeks program by RCI is not with the class action suits, but with state AG consumer protection actions, which do NOT involve big lawyer fees.  The state AG has consumer protection lawyers on salary on their staffs.

When timesharing requires changing what you own regularly to avoid being on the receiving end of whoever RCI is hosing at the time, then it makes it too burdensome for many to bother with timesharing.  That is a further problem, not a solution.







			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> Supply and demand are in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> The Orlando owner who paid big bucks and has little supply but in huge demand might not be able to get to exchange into an Orlando resort with RCI's Orlando exchange restrictions.  This is no problem with RCI's Point system – the secret formulas and hidden restrictions exist no more.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 27, 2006)

Roger said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that "supply and demand" is an utter mystery.  The best solution is published values.  Then every owner can make informed decisions as to what to do in their own case.  Short of that, we don't know what an "honest" exchange company does, nor, whether any given exchange company merits that label.



THere are two major problems with published values.

1) if they are published by a paper and ink system, space limitations require overaveraging that means some rather dissimilar weeks are given the same value, as happens in RCI Points too often, and further they are frozen for long periods and unable to rise and fall with everchanging supply and demand factors.  They smack of the same priciniples of currency pegs, wage and price controls or rent controls rather than being market oriented.

2) if the result is published but not the formula and data to work the formula to arrive at those numbers, you have the worst of all worlds, a system that gives both the motive and opportunity to developers to politick the exchange company to rig the number and inflate their values.  A non-published system, on the other hand gives no motive, as their is no benefit to rigging a number that will not be known.  A system with both formula and result published gives no opportunity, since the formula is out in the open for anyone to work.

All current points systems use the paper and ink publication method and do NOT publish the formula for their numbers.  They are a cure that is worse than the disease.

A non-publlished system will be honest as long as there is no conflict of interest for the exchange company running it.  As long as they have their hand in the till, they are likely to also have their thumb on the scales.  That is the big reason that there is a crying need to end the massive conflict of interest of exchange company rentals from exchange deposits to the general public.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 27, 2006)

*Re: Time share owners that trade weeks mushrooms of commerce*

The worst system of all is the partially transparent system, where they publish values but not the method of arriving at them, in detail, with all of the supporting data.  That describes all present points system.

An honest and market-oriented points system would have to be dynamic, frequently adjusting for changes in supply and demand, fully transparent (including full details of the formula and data to establish values), and detailed (where every week would be valued individually instead of overaveraging).  All of this would require an electronic format.

It amazes me that some points advocates seem fully satisfied with only half of the information public. 




			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> It is a total fallacy to say that secret valuation and ever changing, but secret, supply and demand values benefit the owners of timeshares. It is never a benefit to anyone but those that control the system to have unknown factors.  That so many for so long have accepted being in the dark about values that they try to utilize for good trades shows just how uninformed even the slickest of timeshare users tend to be. Some are sharp in recognizing where the flaws are - that group tends to frequent this type of timeshare group - but most are in the dark when they buy, when they trade and when they sell or give up.  But even those that manage to extract decent trades are doing so blind and if things changed tomorrow by edict of the exchange company they use they wouldn't have a clue until they failed to get what they expected.  I cannot think of any other market place that people would accept being uninformed not only as the norm but an part of the process.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 27, 2006)

*1/2 secret is still better than 100%*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> It amazes me that some points advocates seem fully satisfied with only half of the information public.



Even if it is half, which I do not agree with, that would be half more than the older systems offer. Prior to and during ownership the buyer can look up what he is purchasing, what it is worth and what it costs. If those values don't meet his/her needs they can walk away or sell if it changes later.  Under the other systems the buyer doesn't know the cost (if they did would anyone buy retail?) or the value. Most assume (incorrectly) that buying a week that costs more means it's worth more when in fact the exact opposite may be true. The cheap CA coastal week studio may trade much better than the expensive 2 bedroom Las Vegas week they just bought.  Secret system helped that buyer? Wouldn't they have been better served if they could open a book and know that the  $3k CA week is worth 76.000 points and the $30,000 2 bedroom only 54,000?  Even if they aren't aware of how those numbers were obtained they know what the two weeks are worth and the better value becomes obvious. The values are kept secret to favor the developers (the very claim you try to assign to points) and, because of the non-disclosure, the buyers often get a really bad deal.  Now there is a class action worth fighting but I don't see any swell of support for that. Because at least 80% of the owners don't even know they are being had.  Secret is not a benefit no matter how it is spun.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 27, 2006)

*Re: Time share owners that trade weeks mushrooms of commerce*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> The worst system of all is the partially transparent system, where they publish values but not the method of arriving at them, in detail, with all of the supporting data.  That describes all present points system.
> 
> An honest and market-oriented points system would have to be dynamic, frequently adjusting for changes in supply and demand, fully transparent (including full details of the formula and data to establish values), and detailed (where every week would be valued individually instead of overaveraging).  All of this would require an electronic format.
> 
> It amazes me that some points advocates seem fully satisfied with only half of the information public.


There are some serious questions in my prior post which would have an enormous effect on what happens to owners.  No answers?

From what I gather, you would prefer a fully hidden system as long as someone says that they are using "supply and demand" even if you don't know how they do it or even if they do do it.  No wonder we disagree so much.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 27, 2006)

*Clarification*

Carolinian,

Let me give an example of what I was getting at:

Orlando is a glut of timeshares throughout the year.  However, for a family who’s schedule for all family members means that they can ONLY travel on a specific week and because of a family reunion ONLY one Orlando timeshare is suitable – that family could easily face a non-existent supply for their demand.  Hence, in their eyes, there is a shortage of Orlando units for their needs.

Since I’ve not seen RCI executives doing the “Perp walk”, I’m assuming no Attorney General has found it politically expedient to arrest RCI executives for violating a single solitary law.  The simple fact is RCI is innocent of all the innuendoes presented here daily – show me a mug shot of a single RCI employee charged with a crime!  Enough time has passed for something to have happened.

Just about every night I say to myself “I defended RCI again today, and I don’t even like the company”, I keep scratching my head.  I just don’t want timeshare neophytes avoiding pillaging those poor RCI Week owners – It’s a time honored tradition here on TUG; one, I’m sure, my Norse ancestors would be proud of.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 27, 2006)

*Re: Clarification*

Of course they won't be doing the ''perp walk'' in a consumer protection lawsuit by a state AG.  THose actions are in civil court not criminal court.  An injunction to halt anti-consumer activities is more the result that would occur.

I have pointed that out several times before.  Civil court does not send people to jail, but it does help clean up unsavory practices.





			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> Carolinian,
> 
> 
> Since I’ve not seen RCI executives doing the “Perp walk”, I’m assuming no Attorney General has found it politically expedient to arrest RCI executives for violating a single solitary law.  The simple fact is RCI is innocent of all the innuendoes presented here daily – show me a mug shot of a single RCI employee charged with a crime!  Enough time has passed for something to have happened.
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 27, 2006)

*Re: 1/2 secret is still better than 100%*

In this case, either a whole loaf or no loaf creates a climate for an honest system, but half a loaf is a recipe for corruption.

Also a point value does not tell you what a week is ''worth'' only an arbitrary and often corrupt figure that may, as often as not, be misleading.  If someone thought a mid August week 33 at the beach had the same value as a late October week 43 just because their RCI Points number is the same, they would be badly misled, as the week 33 is worth substantially more on both the resale and rental market, as well as in exchange trading power in an honest system.  Similarly, someone may think a week 43 is ''worth'' a lot more than a week 44 because of their RCI Points numbers, when in fact there is really not much difference if any.

And BTW, points systems ARE the older system.  The very first timeshare - Hapimag back in 1963 - was and is a points system.  The weeks system is a newer improvement devised by a French developer.




			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> Even if it is half, which I do not agree with, that would be half more than the older systems offer. Prior to and during ownership the buyer can look up what he is purchasing, what it is worth and what it costs. If those values don't meet his/her needs they can walk away or sell if it changes later.  Under the other systems the buyer doesn't know the cost (if they did would anyone buy retail?) or the value. Most assume (incorrectly) that buying a week that costs more means it's worth more when in fact the exact opposite may be true. The cheap CA coastal week studio may trade much better than the expensive 2 bedroom Las Vegas week they just bought.  Secret system helped that buyer? Wouldn't they have been better served if they could open a book and know that the  $3k CA week is worth 76.000 points and the $30,000 2 bedroom only 54,000?  Even if they aren't aware of how those numbers were obtained they know what the two weeks are worth and the better value becomes obvious. The values are kept secret to favor the developers (the very claim you try to assign to points) and, because of the non-disclosure, the buyers often get a really bad deal.  Now there is a class action worth fighting but I don't see any swell of support for that. Because at least 80% of the owners don't even know they are being had.  Secret is not a benefit no matter how it is spun.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 27, 2006)

Roger -

Let look at the regional and individual demand factors from a common sense perspective.

Lets say 40 exchangers asked for anything on the Outer Banks.
60 ask for oceanfront outer banks
10 ask for Gold Crown Outer Banks
5 ask for any resort in Nags Head (all of which are ocean front, and no GC)
15 ask specifically for resort A, (GC oceanfront in Kill Devil Hills)
10 ask specifically for resort B oceanfront non-GC in Duck

resort A has demand of 125
resort B has demand of 110
the resorts in Nags Head have a demand of 105 each
the non-oceanfront GC has a demand of 50
the other non-oceanfront resort has a demand of 40
the other oceanfront resorts have a demand of 100

This illustrates that it is not difficult to get the demand figures for a new resort, by apportioning the various categories.

Total regional demand would tend to be an average of the resorts in the region.  It would be necessary to reduce it to an average to be able to compare regions, as otherwise the comparision would be skewed by the number of resorts in each and therefore not be useful.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 28, 2006)

*Re: 1/2 secret is still better than 100%*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> In this case, either a whole loaf or no loaf creates a climate for an honest system, but half a loaf is a recipe for corruption.
> 
> Also a point value does not tell you what a week is ''worth'' only an arbitrary and often corrupt figure that may, as often as not, be misleading.  If someone thought a mid August week 33 at the beach had the same value as a late October week 43 just because their RCI Points number is the same, they would be badly misled, as the week 33 is worth substantially more on both the resale and rental market, as well as in exchange trading power in an honest system.  Similarly, someone may think a week 43 is ''worth'' a lot more than a week 44 because of their RCI Points numbers, when in fact there is really not much difference if any.



Ahh but it IS worth the same to that buyer. They are going to get the values stated.  It's the poor sucker weeks buyer that figures buying the third week in September isn't very far from that great week in August that gets ripped off.  There is nothing out there to tell him any different. In points the high value of the June - July - August use periods are blended with the lesser May - September-October times and everyone benefits.  No more one group of  owners that hold the cards and all others who get less because they happened to buy later in the process.  You have 15-20 owners happy with their time and willing to pay the fees rather than the 10 weeks in the summer and all the rest dogs.  The syetem, which the buyer can see, sets the values and the buyer decides if they agree or not by buying and using it. The promise of buy here -travel anywhere is a much bigger lie than the averaging of values over a set period rather than specific assignments to a few top weeks. I like the idea that more people get an average value than a few with top and the rest with 1/2 or less.  You don't have to agree but that does mean the system is "corrupt".  We see the values going in. The corrupt one is the secret or "newer" version if you prefer. I guess I'll take the original, older and more proven points based way. Back to the future.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 28, 2006)

*Re: 1/2 secret is still better than 100%*

''Everyone'' does not benefit in this overaveraging or ''blending''.  The week 43 owner makes out like a bandit because his week is overvalued, and the week 33 owner is royally ripped off because his week is substantially undervalued.
A week 33 owner would be a fool to participate in this screwball points system, but a week 43 owner would be doing himself a big favor.  

What is important here is the flexibility of the exchange mechanism, and Weeks has it all over Points in this regard.  The key factor is not whether the valuations are published or non-published but whether they are kept electronically or maintained in a paper and ink system.  Weeks valuations are kept electronaically, which is flexible enough to allow valuation of each individual week, while Points uses paper and ink, with its space limitations that force the use of overaveraging.  I much prefer the flexibility of an exchange valuation system that keeps track of its values in the far more versitile electronic format, and that more flexible system is none other than Weeks.





			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> Ahh but it IS worth the same to that buyer. They are going to get the values stated.  It's the poor sucker weeks buyer that figures buying the third week in September isn't very far from that great week in August that gets ripped off.  There is nothing out there to tell him any different. In points the high value of the June - July - August use periods are blended with the lesser May - September-October times and everyone benefits.  No more one group of  owners that hold the cards and all others who get less because they happened to buy later in the process.  You have 15-20 owners happy with their time and willing to pay the fees rather than the 10 weeks in the summer and all the rest dogs.  The syetem, which the buyer can see, sets the values and the buyer decides if they agree or not by buying and using it. The promise of buy here -travel anywhere is a much bigger lie than the averaging of values over a set period rather than specific assignments to a few top weeks. I like the idea that more people get an average value than a few with top and the rest with 1/2 or less.  You don't have to agree but that does mean the system is "corrupt".  We see the values going in. The corrupt one is the secret or "newer" version if you prefer. I guess I'll take the original, older and more proven points based way. Back to the future.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 28, 2006)

*Re: 1/2 secret is still better than 100%*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> In this case, either a whole loaf or no loaf creates a climate for an honest system, but half a loaf is a recipe for corruption.
> 
> ...


Perhaps an illustration would help here.  

We (as consumers) know what Walmart charges for a product.  We do not know how they set the prices (although their prices are subject to supply and demand). What we have here is the recipe for corruption.  (Shame on Walmart!)

What would be better?  Apparently a system in which prices are published on an electronic board so the consumer can stand in front of the DVD she intends to buy and watch the prices go up and down.  Furthermore, she needs full transparency as to what is causing the prices to fluctuate.  (I am not sure what this transparency is... the fact that someone in Hoboken just bought two DVD's causing the supply to go down and the price to go up?  --news that a truckload of DVD's are about to arrive on the loading dock -- a "bulk spacebank" -- so prices need to plunge because of a sudden "oversupply"?)

Well, that would be difficult.  So, rather than the half a loaf which breeds corruption (again, shame on Walmart), what we need is a store with no prices published at all (no loaf at all).  You chose an item, come to the counter, and are told whether you could afford it (or not), but not how much it actually cost.  Walmart takes your money (a single unit -  week for week - no change) and you leave.

Bravo, Cindy!  You were given information as to how many points it would take to go Orlando, and, information in hand, decided that this was not a good value for spending your points. I think everyone should be given opportunities to decide whether the price of something is worth it for them to spend their money.  I don't think the fact that Walmart offers us this half a loaf is a bad thing.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 28, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Roger -
> 
> Let look at the regional and individual demand factors from a common sense perspective.
> 
> ...


You obviously have far better knowledge of the resorts at OBX than I do, so it is kind of hard to follow your example.  I do have a few questions...

If the new Nags Head megaresort has 50 unsold units deposited plus 10 units from new owners and the forty year old motel conversion has 2 units available, they would both be given the same amount of credit for a request for a Nags Head resort.  That is the indivdual "*demand*" according to your system.  

Now, the "*supply*" of the megaresort is high, but the "*supply*" of the motel unit is low.  So, if I understand your system correctly, someone owning at the motel is given great "individual" *supply and demand *(RCI lists "individual" *supply and demand *as a factor in calculating trading power), but an owner of one of the new units at the megaresort is punished for owning at the new complex.  These owners are given low trading power.

Quite honestly, I don't think that this is how RCI would calculate supply and demand for the new Nags Head resort.  The truth of the matter is that none of us (that includes both of us) know how they calculate supply and demand any more than we know how Walmart decides how much to charge for an individual item (see previous post).  The big difference is that Walmart lets us see their prices and decide if a purchase is worth our money.  I am glad that RCI is at last taking a few steps toward reform and at least allowing its points owners to see prices also. 

I had to laugh at one of Perry's comments.  I can't say that RCI is one of my favorite companies either and yet I keep having to posting in their favor.  I just hate to see them criticized for taking at least a few steps toward reform within the timesharing industry.  Nothing, nothing has caused more consumer headaches than allowing timeshare sales staff to misrepresent the value of their product because they can say "red for red" or " we have some of the highest demand in the country."  Let the consumer see actual numbers of what their unit will trade for.  Hurrah!


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 28, 2006)

I'd have to agree with Roger.  One of the biggest lies in timesharing is the representation that the timeshare salesman makes on the topic of exchanging.  They try to make it simple and so they tell a series of half truths and outright lies about what can be done vs. what can't. 

By not sharing trading power values and availability metrics, the exchange company is contributing to this series of misrepresentations by the developer's sales team.

Carolinian keeps arguing that sharing the numbers forces developers to lobby the exchange company for better point values for its resort.  The other side of this argument which he does not share is that NOT sharing it enables the same resort developers to make bold face lies about how easy it is to exchange with the unit they are selling.

I claim that this set of lies is far worse for the industry than published values for points that don't change frequently.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 28, 2006)

*RCI and the kid games*

Pin the tail on the donkey reminds me of RCI and II exchanges (Week based).

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pin_the_tail_on_the_donkey

I deposit my week, RCI blindfolds me, spins me around and I get an exchange while dizzy and blindfolded.

If this is an example of 21st century commerce what’s next on the horizon?

The simple fact is that NO ONE, not an RCI whistleblower, NO ONE, knows exactly how RCI works internally.  If it’s anything like II (Which I study on a daily basis) there is only one rule (The PRIME rule) that seems to always work:

RCI and II gets exchanges which makes their stockholders very happy.

Beyond that, I’ve reversed engineered how II works internally and it’s a jumbled mess of semi permanent, vacillating rules and filled with human mistakes.  I’m assuming RCI is just as bad.

Anyone claiming that supply and demand makes RCI work can’t back that claim up with any published rules – just vague references by RCI how the system worked sometime in the past.

Take advantage of the Prime Rule – RCI will do everything in its power to make two disjointed deposits come together in a lopsided exchange.  There are hundreds of these lopsided exchanges reported here over the years.  The trick, of course, is to be on the right side of the exchange.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 28, 2006)

*Re: 1/2 secret is still better than 100%*

There two big differences.  Wal-mart is in a competitive business environment.
RCI is a quasi-monopoly.  Competition creates an environment condusive to fair prices.  Second, Wal-mart sells its own inventory that it has purchased, while an exchange company accepts inventory owned by its members in trust for exchange purposes, a VERY different situation.

Of course, one very good way to assure fairness in exchanging is to help grow the competition, so that there is genuine competition in the exchange business.  What have you done to promote dual affiliation, knowledge of the independents among other timesharers, or any other action to help grow competition?






			
				Roger said:
			
		

> Perhaps an illustration would help here.
> 
> We (as consumers) know what Walmart charges for a product.  We do not know how they set the prices (although their prices are subject to supply and demand). What we have here is the recipe for corruption.  (Shame on Walmart!)
> 
> ...


----------



## irish (Jul 28, 2006)

look, i wouldn't mind being an rci points member, but not when  my resort is charging over $3000.00 for this PRIVILEGE. if they were to readjust there pricing to a reasonable amount, i would do it but a $2800.00 profit is absurd!!!


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 28, 2006)

Irish,

I feel your pain.  When I joined Points (in my case, the price tag was $2500), I felt like I was paying a "morality tax."  Timesharing was so absolutely dirty, I was embarassed to be part of it.  TUG helped newcomers learn the ins and outs of getting a more even break, but that itself caused a split within TUG.  There were those (a great many) who generously offered whatever inside information they could give to help others get a better deal than what they had been getting.  Then there were those who embraced the motto "loose lips sink ships."  They wanted to keep the tips secret so that just they would have an edge over other timesharers.  When asked about the ethics of this, the standard reply was "Well as long as it is in the rules (as long as RCI allows it) it is fair" Or "Roger, the world just is not fair." (These lines no longer seems operant -- now some people are wrenching there hands that some of the rules tilt the field against ME.  Just because it is within the rules no longer seems to justify as much as it used to.)

In any case, my feeling was that the novice had as much chance at getting the same breaks within points as I did -- 1000 points in, 1000 points out -- it was a fairer game.  But why should I have to pay an extra charge just because I wanted to participate in something that is fairer? (That is why I labeled the fee a "morality tax.")

I would like to say that I was really nobel and paid the $2500 just to be fairer.  In fact, my resort is a fairly high point resort.  Given that, given my willingness to trade for borderline season weeks, given that my interests are not in mid-summer seaside resorts, I have easily benefitted from the additional investment.  I was able to cover the $2500 cost with the additional value that I got from my timeshare thanks to the flexibility of points and did so within three years (and it had nothing to do with robbing and pillaging the Weeks system). 

It would be nice if I could say that someone who owned a resort that had a medium amount of points attached could recover the extra fee so easily.  I cannot honestly say that.  The only good thing is that the openness of point values allows everyone to calculate for themselves, based upon their own interests, whether the conversion makes economic sense.  Wouldn't it be nice if the Weeks system share this sort of openness?  The fact that it does tells you who benefits...  red for red!


----------



## JLB (Jul 30, 2006)

Other than knowing what this thread is about, I haven't followed it.

I did consult my crystal ball concerning it, and the voice from beyond answered, not exactly denying the rumor.

Other than that, I don't care to comment.


----------



## JLB (Aug 4, 2006)

Yeah, I do care to comment.

I haven't read much of this but assume from it's length that it has wandered a bit.

If that is the case, taking it back to the original topic, I am slow to recall, but this proposal is not all that different than what I asked RCI to do for quite awhile. 

When we first bought, at the point when reality set in (and since there was no RCI.com that took a few years) and we knew our weeks would not trade like the sales weasel said they would, I asked RCI to take two weeks for one good exchange, say to go to Hawaii, and they never would.

I don't see anything wrong with the idea of anteing up to get better trades, provided that is the understanding from the git-go, if it is not applied involuntarily retroactively.

I would still be willing to do it, ante up or give two crappy weeks to get one good vacation, but I would like to be able to see what I could select from online, so they would have to come up with a way for weak traders to see everything.

If everything was out in the open and above board, that should not be a problem.

Yeah, I would sign on to that, a crappy week plus money or another crappy week for a good week. Seems like a fair way of dealing with a problem that has been there from the beginning.


----------



## grupp (Aug 4, 2006)

JLB said:
			
		

> Yeah, I do care to comment.
> 
> Yeah, I would sign on to that, a crappy week plus money or another crappy week for a good week. Seems like a fair way of dealing with a problem that has been there from the beginning.




Crappy weeks are crappy weeks no matter what you do with them.  I does not matter whether they are alone, placed in bunches or converted to some type of points, no one (or least very few people) want them. Why on earth would they want give you something good in exchange for more of something they don't want to take at all?

Gary


----------



## Jennie (Aug 6, 2006)

I cannot take the time now to read the entire linked thread but will do so in a day or two. Maybe this has been discussed there already. But, for what it's worth, I am envisioning huge resistance from developers, especially at resorts where owner weeks would be assigned a low dollar value. How will they ever be able to sell off season weeks to unsuspecting neophytes who generally buy these weeks after being duped into believing that ownership of said week will enable them to exchange into great timeshares all over the world--you know, everything in the RCI "wishful thinking" directory. 

And why would people pay a large fee to purchase a week, pay annaul maintenance and RCI membership fees, plus special assessments, and then have to pay an additional hefty fee to "trade up" for an exchange? They would do just as well renting what they want directly from an owner, as needed, and not have any of the costs and responsibilities of timeshare ownership. 

And who would trust the values RCI assigns to a week? They would be tied up in court forever by owners and/or resorts and/or class action attorneys disputing the figures. It's virtually impossible to dispute not receiving a desired trade. But once a dollar value is assigned to a week, there is something tangible to challenge.


----------

