# Lets look at an actual exchange weeks vs points



## timeos2 (Feb 2, 2006)

Having recently decided to spend a summer week in New Hampshire I have been looking at the options from all of my available sources. Here is what I found: 

- FF doesn't have a resort in the area I desire but I can use points for an affiliate resort or as an RCI weeks exchange. I would need to use 126,000 FF points for the deposit required and pay the exchange fee of $149 for a total cost of $614. The unit available using this trade is a 1 br in the original section of the Eastern Slope Inn (although there are other choices I will stick with one resort just to have some degree of continuity).  We have stayed there before, it is an average resort with a lot of charm but unranked. 

- If I deal in straight week for week trades I can use either my Westgate or Cypress Pointe which can be placed into the weeks pool. If I do either my week is gone along with my annual fee. Plus the exchange fee. Using my 2 BR Westgate I'd get the same Eastern Slope unit for my annual $645 plus $149 or $794.  Using my three bedroom CPR I'd spend $685 plus $149 - $834. And once used that week is gone - no change back.

- If I convert my weeks above into PFD (Points For Deposit) they create two wildly different results. The 2BR Westgate is considered a standard, unranked resort so I get 38,000 for my $645 + $26 deposit fee (since 1/1/06) - $ .018/pt.  While my CPR as a Gold Crown 3 BR brings in 74,500 points or $.0095/pt.  

Now comes the fun part. Using RCI Points I search for available units. There are the same exact use dates and units I saw in weeks but the points cost is 22,500 to 24,000. And there are options for many different unit configurations that range from 15,000 points to 54,000 for that week at that resort. In weeks there were three unit options and picking any one of them meant 100% of my week deposit was gone - here I can decide to use some or all of my weeks value as best fits our needs. I can get "change back"!  Lets use the 24,000 point time and the cost is $353 using my CPR points or $ 557 using my Westgate points. And I get change back from both.  I'm ahead already. 

But, like a Ginsu knife commercial, there is much more to the story. Now that I'm viewing the world from RCI Points I see that I'm not limited to the original Eastern Slope Inn anymore. Behind the Inn are brand new townhomes known as the Suites at Eastern Slope Inn that are not in the RCI Weeks system at all. When we visited in 2004 we were given a tour of those and we all commented that while we liked the original Inn and it's charm we preferred the more "timeshare" like units that the Suites offered while still enjoying the common areas of the original Inn. The best of both as it were. 

So now I see it takes 65,500 points to get a 1 BR Suites unit on 8/13.  There are also options for studios and 2 bedrooms with various point values. If I use my CPR points my cost for a 1 BR is $721.25 but I'm now staying in a Gold Crown resort much closer to what we enjoy at our "home resort in Orlando and still getting 9,000 points back for future use. I call that a much more balanced exchange than the whole week for a 1 BR in the old Inn. But there is STILL more!

Turns out school starts the third week of August so demand goes down for units. I can save another 13,500 points if we can travel on 8/20 rather than 8/13.  Yet that same time in weeks would still cost me either my whole 2 or 3 bedroom week and I'd still be at the unranked Inn rather than the Gold Crown Suites. So now my cost is $619 after the PFD fee and the $99 exchange fee. And I still have 22,500 of my CPR points left to spend over the next two years. I'm getting a far superior unit for less than the weeks exchange cost and still have more points to use later. 

Now all of this focused on only 1 specific resort and the various options I saw there. In reality in RCI Points there were 9 different resorts available in that area and each had many of the options I listed above for unit size, ranking or no ranking and variations on points required based on dates and the unit features/size we picked.  In weeks there were only 4 choices from 8/9 to 8/20/06.  All of this only 7 months from the use date so we are fairly sure what our available dates will be rather than trying to guess 18-24 months out. 

When I speak of flexibility in exchange finding 9 resorts and literally a hundred different ways to reserve use 7 months away from use defines the word for me. Being able to shop my points until I find the best cost/value is flexible. Having multiple unit sizes and point values is flexible. Having clearly defined point costs - thus identified dollar cost - that I can pick and choose is flexible. Not having to give up my full deposit for one fixed week (and not even at an equal quality of resort) is flexible. To me this small exercise proves beyond a doubt why people prefer a good points based exchange system over the old fixed week model. I get to choose and I get to save or splurge depending on my choices. That is flexible.  Not even Carolianian can tell me that the old fixed week model did better than that, can he?  

Long live points.


----------



## JeffV (Feb 2, 2006)

Want to make a bet?


----------



## JLB (Feb 3, 2006)

That's a nice diatribe and illustrates what is best for you.


----------



## Dave M (Feb 3, 2006)

JLB expresses my sentiments very well. 

What works well for you will also work well for some others. But not for all of us.

If my ability to successfully "trade up" with weeks ever erodes to the extent it's no longer significant, I might come over to your side. Not until then.


----------



## CaliDave (Feb 3, 2006)

I can come up with the same situation where my family loves to vacation in Southern California Coastal. I got a 2bd GC summer week. Total cost for the week $425.00

 Not even points can match that... (BruceCZ doesn't count)

I could give all the details of my vacaion planning, but I won't. The "point" is one system isn't always right or wrong for every situation. 

Points is right for you.. weeks is right for me.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 3, 2006)

Points tend to be especially productive when the underlying weeks are at overpointed resorts in overbuilt areas.  They perform well, because supply and demand factors are no longer in play with the rigged numbers of RCI Points.

The Weeks system doesn't work as well for trading weeks from overbuilt areas because those pesky market factors of supply and demand come into play, and the weeks have to trade for what they are really worth instead of some value arbitrarily assigned by a central authority.


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 3, 2006)

*The value is assigned if you see it or not*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> Points tend to be especially productive when the underlying weeks are at overpointed resorts in overbuilt areas.  They perform well, because supply and demand factors are no longer in play with the rigged numbers of RCI Points.
> 
> The Weeks system doesn't work as well for trading weeks from overbuilt areas because those pesky market factors of supply and demand come into play, and the weeks have to trade for what they are really worth instead of some value arbitrarily assigned by a central authority.


I could have picked my Cape Cod week instead - a very high value in weeks. Had I done so I still see only the same 4 resorts I see with my Orlando times and, more importantly, if I used it for one of those non-ranked resorts it would be gone. Despite it's far superior value I would get nothing back as I do in points. The fatal flaw is the fixed, one for one nature of weeks that requires the owner to attempt to match the trade value rather than the system doing it.  

And who places the values on the weeks? That same central authority you dislike but they do it without revealing the results. And thats a better way? I would reverse the opinion of which system is rigged. Weeks benefits mostly the exchange company, developers and low value time owners at the expense  of the higher value owners. Thats why many have left weeks and gone to the various points systems.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Feb 3, 2006)

If I were running a weeks based exchange company and I were interested in maximizing my short-term profits, I would absolutely minimize the number of upgrades I offered in a week-for-week exchange.  My goal would be to offer the exchanger the lowest value week I could.  That would leave me a surplus of upper end weeks I could rent for maximum value.

The point being, the hidden value of the weeks system creates at least as much incentive to distort supply and demand valuations.

If RCI is as untrustworthy a company as Carolinian would have us believe, why should he assume _a priori_ that when it comes to manipulating supply and demand in the weeks system, RCI's is suddenly trustworthy?

If you buy Carolinian's picture of RCI and its motives, it simply does not follow that the supply and demand picture we see in Weeks is any more trustworthy and accurate than the supply and demand relationship in Points.

But with Points, a member knows exactly how many points their week will get and what exchanges they can expect to make with it.

In either Weeks or Points,  RCI has an pecuniary incentrive to get the relationships reasonably close.  If they screw up those relationships in either system, they get stuck with a glut of overvalued weeks that they can't move for the value they gave the owners of those weeks, and owners of undervalued weeks stop depositing because they can bet better value elsewhere.

Certainly the weeks system can be more dyanmic in resonding to changes in supply as compared with the way the points system is currently wired.  But that greater dynamism also creates greater opportunities to manipulate for short-term gain.  

The analogy is with a commodities market that is dominated by one or two large players (where the dominant players are dominant in the marketplace as middlemen but not in determining the overall supply - i.e., a market such as wheat or sugar, but not a commodity such as gold or diamonds).  In a market such as wheat or sugar, it's very difficult for those large brolers to set the long term price, because the overall demand and supply of the commodity is determined by forces that are outside their control.  But in the short term the dominant brokers can create and exploit short term swings in the market.  And when the entire process is hidden, it's even easier for them to do.

If RCI is the evil entity that many people suspect them of being, we should be far more suspicious of supply-demand relationship manipulations by RCI in the Weeks system than in the Points system.


----------



## jjking42 (Feb 3, 2006)

the weeks system is best used when trading up. and when you can plan 18-24 months in advances

The points system is best used when trading down. Does anyone really like to book those HH summer or Colorado ski weeks at 85,000 + points. Points are a very good value for shoulder season and other slight downgrades. But not GC prime season unless you are raiding the weeks side.

The best thing about points is raiding non points resorts on the weeks side. The generic grid is just wrong and the result is almost always a trade up.

If you own some of both than you can go up or down.

Its cheaper to book a fall week on the beach with points but i would rather book a summer week with a weeks trade.


----------



## JLB (Feb 3, 2006)

*What's the Purpose*

What exactly is the purpose of arguing back and forth over which system is better, especially when no one is asking for anyone's advice on the subject?

I know people who do quite well in at least a dozen different systems, probably more like two dozen, but I don't see them trying to win converts.

I recently started a thread comparing the same searches in Points and Weeks, not because I was trying to prove any point~~~I already knew what works for us and have no desire to convert anyone to my beliefs or to have someone else convert me to their beliefs if it is not best for us.  I did so because I was surprised by what I feel are restrictions placed on Points members that I did not expect to see.  I was also surprised by how expensive trades I do in Weeks would be in Points.

I did the searches in Points to see if I could figure out where the good stuff for SW Florida in January has gone.  I concluded Points wasn't the culprit, Weeks raiding as it is called, because Points members can see anything more than I can when I'm looking.  By the time they can get 'em through Points, the good ones are long gone.

I'm not promoting or damning anything, just saying I was surprised to see those things after the years of ballyhooing Points on TUG.


----------



## funtime (Feb 3, 2006)

*Thanks for the walk through*

I am not a points person but I did appreciate the walk through.  It took time to lay it all out and I am sure it will help other tuggers.  While I have a few RCI weeks, I like II much better.  But specific examples as you have taken the time to do is far more helpful to other TUGGERS  that the back and forth of some other postings as to which is better. points or weeks.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Feb 3, 2006)

Let's play a little thought game.  Instead of trading timeshare weeks, let's trade stocks. You've got 700 shares of stock in Company A that you have availale for trade.   But the situation will be like this.
You can only swap your shares for shares in another Company - no outright sales.


The market is totally dominated by two brokers,  Betwen them the two brokers handle 90% of the business.  Those brokers are the entities that determine what a stock is worth and they are also the entities that conduct the actual transfers of stock.  Of the two brokers, the Broker #1 is about twice as big as Broker #2.


You can open a *Commodities Account* with Broker #1.  The commdoity account deals in commodity units, with commodity unit consisting of 700 shares. You can only deal in units of 700 shares; the 700 share units cannot be split, but you can combine multiples of 700 shares. 

When you want to make a trade you give Broker #1 one or more 700 share units.  Your account rep at Broker #1 looks over their available inventory and offers you several options of 700 share units you can accept in return for your unit.  You are free to accept the offer or not.  If you don't accept, you can come back later and inquire again about what units might be available.

You can't get your 700 shares back, though, after you put them in the Commodity Account.  

There are no formal rules established for how Broker #1 decides what they will offer you in exchange for your 700 shares.  You can only select from what Broker #1 offers you, or accept nothing at all.  Broker #1 is the sole judge as to what relative value they assing to your 700 shares as compared with all other 700 share blocks.  Your only recourse if you don't like what you are offered after having deposited your shares is to not offer them any more of those shares in the future, or to close your account if you no longer want to deal with Broker #1 at all.


You can open a *Currency Account* with Broker #1.  In a currency account, Broker #1 posts the value in nibs of all of the 700 share blocks in which it makes a market.  Those values are posted on January 1 of every year, and remain unchanged during the course of a year.  

Before you give Broker #1 your 700 shares, you can see how many nibs you will receive in exchange for your 700 shares.  You can also see how many nibs are required for all of the other units in which Broker #1 makes a market.  

In a Currency Account, you can obtain shares in as litle as 100 share units.  The value chart shows which stocks are available in 100 share units, and provides nib values in for both 100 share units and 700 share units.  

Unredeemed nibs remain in your account and can be combined with leftover nibs from other transactions and new nibs created from new deposits to your account to make more exchanges.

Now, I submit that in the analogy above, the Currency Account with Broker #1  is far less vulnerable to behind the scenes supply and demand manipulation and hanky-panky than is the commodity account.

The fact that values are published only once per year is a disadvantage, but it is a disadvantage for both the Broker and the account holder.  Both parties bear the risks associated with the Value chart becoming outdated.  As real values change, some account holder share blocks will become overvalued and these holders will be credited with more nibs than their weeks is worth.  Those accounts will extact more value than they yield, to the detriment of Broker #1.  

Other times, the dynamics will result in some units increasing in value after the values are published, so the owners of those units have fewer nibs in their account than they would under a dynamic pricing system.


----------



## "Roger" (Feb 3, 2006)

T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> If I were running a weeks based exchange company and I were interested in maximizing my short-term profits, I would absolutely minimize the number of upgrades I offered in a week-for-week exchange.  My goal would be to offer the exchanger the lowest value week I could.  That would leave me a surplus of upper end weeks I could rent for maximum value...



This is EXACTLY what my wife said after our first timeshare trade.  In points, you have to get back one for one.  Weeks allows a company to manipulate people to,_ *on average*_, trade down.  (I say, on average, because you need to throw in some up trades for appearance.)  When the average trade is a trade down, the company can skim off the top and rent the best inventory.

This has created one of the biggest ironies on TUG.  A whole crew of people, entirely suspicious of RCI, have been defending the very system that would allow RCI to accomplish what they accuse them of doing.


----------



## Steve (Feb 3, 2006)

*deja vu all over again*

It's amazing how many times this topic gets repackaged and rehashed over and over and over again...mostly by the same few people.  

Neither side seems content to let the other be happy with what works best for them.  Both sides want to have the last word.  And both keep searching for that new way of phrasing their argument that may finally convince someone.  Perhaps a few TUGGERS are convinced one way or the other from time to time...but certainly the core participants in these threads aren't likely to change their views.

I guess the "fun" is in the debate...and that's cool.  It just seems like the topic would die out after a while...kind of like the old "potatoes or Stove Top" debate of 1980s advertising ...but that doesn't seem to happen with this topic.

Steve


----------



## jerseygirl (Feb 3, 2006)

I completely agree that the problems you describe exist in both systems.  And, I think you're absolutely right -- there is no reason to trust that the weeks system is fairly administered either.

I think the biggest problem is rentals.  Despite what the T&C say, the "morally and ethically correct" practice would be to offer *all * deposits to other owners before declaring anything "excess."  

Example:  Resort A  = 100 (whether it's a point value or a secret weeks trading value is irrelevant).  

Points owners can see a cost of 100; if no one wants it (i.e. no one is willing to pay 100), RCI can't lower it to 90 until the next annual "rebalancing."  Therefore, it's excess ... and goes to the rental pool.  This needs to change.   

Using the same example, RCI can (AND SHOULD) lower the secret weeks trading value to 90.  If there are still no takers, they can (AND SHOULD) lower the value to 80 ... and so on.  They should not be permitted to rent the unit until "X" is met (90 days/trading power decreased 50%).  "X" should be plainly and accurately spelled out in the T&C for all to see.

That members allow them to do anything else is beyond my comprehension.

My other big issues with RCI Points are the generic crossover grid (but it did seem to get better this year, so I'll give credit where credit is due) and the ability for points owners to make points partners exchanges that are not based on their own units.  Allowing the fox to withdraw comparable units for the rental pool is just unbelievable to me.  I asked Madge to provide examples of the points partners units that led to the Embassy Maui rentals.  Not surprisingly, she was unable (probably not permitted) to do so.  With II, you can only make the equivalent of a "points partner" trade BEFORE you deposit.  Only YOUR DEPOSIT is put into the rental pool.  This is as it should be.  Anything else is simply putting way too much power/tempation in the fox's control.

Although I'm sure I'm perceived as a points hater, I just want to go on record by declaring myself an "RCI Points Hater" only.  I happen to think the other points programs (that I'm personally familiar with) are wonderful!


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 3, 2006)

*There are those who don't know how points work*



			
				funtime said:
			
		

> I am not a points person but I did appreciate the walk through.  It took time to lay it all out and I am sure it will help other tuggers.  While I have a few RCI weeks, I like II much better.  But specific examples as you have taken the time to do is far more helpful to other TUGGERS  that the back and forth of some other postings as to which is better. points or weeks.


The idea of the post was to do a one time, resort specific comparison of the two major methods of exchanging timeshare use. There are often questions posted here about what the differences are.  This trade was ripe for the job as it happened to be available in both systems and presented a great example of the differences in the two systems.  I don't expect anyone to decide that one or the other is the only system for them based on this but I hope it will provide a small sample of the differences so others can perhaps get a better feel for that and if another option may work for them as it has for us. 

Heck, I'm not even sure I got the best deal for myself.  I've made no study of weeks values as I don't have the time to try to figure all that out.  I know that in my simple approach to timeshare exchange points makes more sense to me and I can feel like I control the outcome and the cost to my satisfaction. That didn't happen in all my years of weeks only trades so I have decided that points work better for us. Yet I still check weeks as well to do the best I can to get the best value each time.  I don't plan to make a job out of either - I just want the resorts, times and unit size we desire. If I get those we're happy.


----------



## Dani (Feb 4, 2006)

JLB said:
			
		

> I did the searches in Points to see if I could figure out where the good stuff for SW Florida in January has gone.  I concluded Points wasn't the culprit, Weeks raiding as it is called, because Points members can see anything more than I can when I'm looking.  By the time they can get 'em through Points, the good ones are long gone.
> 
> I'm not promoting or damning anything, just saying I was surprised to see those things after the years of ballyhooing Points on TUG.



  Exactly.  While there is much that I disagree with Carolinian about, I have always agreed that many weeks are over-pointed.    I now realize that in my mind, that somehow meant that perhaps there was a raiding of Weeks going on.  What I have found is that nothing could be further from the truth.  At least not based upon what I have seen.    I can still see much more with my strong Weeks unit than I can in Points.   For many weeks, the monetary costs in Points would be far higher than the costs to me in Weeks.   In some cases however, Points just can't be beat.     

  My bottom line and best advice is this....keep your strong traders in Weeks, and put your weak traders in Points.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 4, 2006)

Dani said:
			
		

> Exactly.  While there is much that I disagree with Carolinian about, I have always agreed that many weeks are over-pointed.    I now realize that in my mind, that somehow meant that perhaps there was a raiding of Weeks going on.  What I have found is that nothing could be further from the truth.  At least not based upon what I have seen.    I can still see much more with my strong Weeks unit than I can in Points.   For many weeks, the monetary costs in Points would be far higher than the costs to me in Weeks.   In some cases however, Points just can't be beat.
> 
> My bottom line and best advice is this....keep your strong traders in Weeks, and put your weak traders in Points.



Dani,

Thanks so much for confirming what I have been saying about the "raiding of weeks" red herring.  You only learn this by actually trying it.  

What I am excited about is the Manhattan Club sightings you have been posting.  I think it's worth keeping my RCI Points account just for reserving stays there.

Do you know if they charge an additional housekeeping fee?


----------



## Dani (Feb 4, 2006)

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> Dani,
> 
> Thanks so much for confirming what I have been saying about the "raiding of weeks" red herring.  You only learn this by actually trying it.
> 
> ...



   You hit the nail on the head.  I had been thinking about getting rid of my Points week.  I had been weighing the pro's and con's.  For awhile, the cons were winning.  Now, I will likely keep the week.  I like that I can book MC for a day, or two, or three.  I also had not been doing many searches for short stays until I read the posts by Spence last night.  I have booked no less than three weeks in II and RCI this year where I can only stay for a few days so this feature may come in very handy and actually save me some money.

  As for additional housekeeping fees, I have no idea.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 4, 2006)

I just called RCI and there is NO additional housekeeping fees for the Manhattan Club!  Woo Hoo.  

Forget about raiding weeks.  Getting a weekend in New York with $100 roundtrip tickets from JetBlue is what RCI Points is all about.


----------



## JLB (Feb 4, 2006)

Dani said:
			
		

> keep your strong traders in Weeks, and put your weak traders in Points.



So you can _*manipulate*_ both sytems!


----------



## boyblue (Feb 4, 2006)

JeffV said:
			
		

> Want to make a bet?



Thanks JeffV for the best laugh I've had this year.     

John your study is very useful so is the one done by JLB.  We need more of these case studies.  That way we can put some meat on the points vs weeks skeleton.

The difficulty is the space/time continuum.


----------



## Dani (Feb 4, 2006)

JLB said:
			
		

> So you can _*manipulate*_ both sytems!




    Indeed.  I said a few months back before I even had a Points account that perhaps those who owned within both systems were among the most savvy of owners.  As the days pass, I am more and more convinced of it.


----------



## copper (Feb 4, 2006)

Weeks!!! Points!!! 

I don't care what you prefer... for me it's not joining RCI until it quits renting to the public. I'll use my weeks... that works for me and when it quits working I'll dump the weeks and rent them cheaper than I currently pay in maintenance fees.


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 4, 2006)

*The raiding was always a ruse*

It is the flexibility, availability and predictability of points that makes them attractive. The so called raiding was never the primary reason to get into points as the selections usually aren't great but you can grab an occasional deal just like the last minute weeks choices. Not a place to plan the majority of your timeshare use.  It makes for a great rallying cry as it sounds so ominous to weeks traders but never had a basis in fact.

One of the truly great features of points that I don't see played up often is the fact that the system actively brings in inventory - often great inventory. When the MC as an example signs up a new RCI Points member for the next three years at a minimum that inventory is now available to all points members. And it's in the system in a predictable timeframe as well as smaller increments than 1 set week.  There is no guarantee that a weeks member would have placed that time into the system and no chance that it could be utilized as an owner at the resort can - two, three and four day stays if preferred.  Multiply that by close to a half million members and multiple weeks from many and the pool of available time has improved significantly.  And many of those owners may also take advantage of PFD again increasing the choices.  Having a large pool of available points is the best way to use the point system so making deposits becomes an inviting alternative.  You can even check before making that PFD what it will get you - a better request first system if you will.  And of course there are the points only resorts which are only available to points members. That category is growing everyday and usually with the newest resorts.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 4, 2006)

I traded into an RCI Points resort through DAE, and looked at the numbers for that.

The 2BR week I traded into at Sunny Coast Resort Club carried a total of 57,000 points.  I did a straight weeks one for one trade using an OBX 1BR red week.  In RCI Points, that red week would have a PFD value of 25,500 at the time.  I would have had to use two of those weeks and then some to get the same trade with RCI Points.  With DAE's weeks system, it was a clean even trade.  Thank you, DAE!

Was it a trade up?  Probably not.  Given the supply on Malta, the resorts there are probably overpointed.   But what is very certain is that the unfair generic points grids substantially undervalued prime Weeks inventory, such as the week I gave for the trade.

DAE gave me a fair trade that would not have been possible, using the same week in RCI Points.


----------



## JeffV (Feb 4, 2006)

I double my bet. 


			
				boyblue said:
			
		

> Thanks JeffV for the best laugh I've had this year.
> 
> John your study is very useful so is the one done by JLB.  We need more of these case studies.  That way we can put some meat on the points vs weeks skeleton.
> 
> The difficulty is the space/time continuum.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 4, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> I traded into an RCI Points resort through DAE, and looked at the numbers for that.
> 
> The 2BR week I traded into at Sunny Coast Resort Club carried a total of 57,000 points.  I did a straight weeks one for one trade using an OBX 1BR red week.  In RCI Points, that red week would have a PFD value of 25,500 at the time.  I would have had to use two of those weeks and then some to get the same trade with RCI Points.  With DAE's weeks system, it was a clean even trade.  Thank you, DAE!
> 
> ...



Heads I win, tails you lose.  That's the game I played when I was a kid to ensure that I always won a coin toss.  This post reminded me of that.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 4, 2006)

The simple fact is that the generic girds undervalue prime Weeks inventory.
That means Points resort to Weeks through a crossover trade is a trade up if you are trading for prime inventory.  but if you go the other way and use that grid to assign point values through PFD, you are losing value.  Those two results are quite consistent and result from going through the grid from opposite directions.  That's hardly ''heads I win, tails you lose''!


----------



## Dani (Feb 5, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> The simple fact is that the generic girds undervalue prime Weeks inventory.
> That means Points resort to Weeks through a crossover trade is a trade up if you are trading for prime inventory.  but if you go the other way and use that grid to assign point values through PFD, you are losing value.  Those two results are quite consistent and result from going through the grid from opposite directions.  That's hardly ''heads I win, tails you lose''!



   It most certainly does not necessarily mean that.   With respect to cross-over trades, if you are one of those individuals that has given up a prime week into Points, that would not be the case.   Also, whether or not you have traded up or not is dependent upon the week that is exchanged into.  Like people in Weeks, people in Points trade down.   

With respect to PFD deposits, many weak trading deposits are trading waaaaay up.   Far further up than they ever could in Weeks absent a "glitch."  To use your terminoligy, there is a raiding of the Points system going on and this raiding is IMHO far more pervasive on the Points side than on the Weeks side.    

   If you have ever conducted searches within Weeks through Points, you would see that there is very little availability of prime weeks through this method.  I have no idea why this is except that RCI has assigned a mid-range VEP to these exchanges through Points which prevents the exchange into some of the more prime resorts.  This is not to say that good exchanges cannot be had, but frankly, it's a little shocking to see just how little you can get in Weeks through your Points account.   

    Sorry, but this idea that Points owners are raiding Weeks inventory  is greatly exaggerated.   If anything, smart Weeks owners are doing quite a number on Points inventory.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 5, 2006)

The problem with the crossover grids is overaveraging, a problem that also exists WITHIN points.  When you lump two many dissimilar weeks together, as happens in Points resorts tables and even more so in the crossover grids, it gives the better weeks within those groups a value that is much too low.  It also overvalues the lesser weeks within those groups.

Within Points, a good example is giving a mid-August week 33 on the OBX the same point total as a late October week 43.  That's just nutty!

For the grids, all locations within broad areas are averaged together, and all red weeks of the same region of same size and award status are averaged together.  That means that the lesser weeks within these overbroad groupings are going to be way overvalued and the prime weeks are going to be way undervalued.  It is among the prime weeks that Weeks members are being ripped off by the crossover system.   Considering award status in breaking down the girds is of little value, since location plays a much bigger role in value.  They would do better to break down the regions into smaller areas, like they do for Europe on the grids.

As to people claiming that actual searchs show that there is less there that what the crossover grids say you can exchange for, I take this with a grain of salt.  I know someone who used the crossover grids to get into Vienna, Austria, certainly a very prime location, during the Christmas market season for less than 10,000 points and he was also offered Allen House in London for a point total that was ridiculously low (unfortunarely for him at a time he couldn't go).  These are very prime crossover trades.

Points members should be required to play with their own marbles and not be able to snatch them out of the Weeks game.


----------



## Dani (Feb 5, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> The problem with the crossover grids is overaveraging, a problem that also exists WITHIN points.  When you lump two many dissimilar weeks together, as happens in Points resorts tables and even more so in the crossover grids, it gives the better weeks within those groups a value that is much too low.  It also overvalues the lesser weeks within those groups.
> 
> Within Points, a good example is giving a mid-August week 33 on the OBX the same point total as a late October week 43.  That's just nutty!
> 
> ...



   So basically, you have not conducted any of these searches yourself, have no first-hand knowledge of how these searches work, but insist on drawing inferfences nevertheless?  That's fine, at least we  know from what point of reference you are working from.   If you ever decide to actually conduct searches in Points, I would be very interested to know your thoughts at that point.   

    As for your friend whom was able to obtain a Christmas week in Vienna, what you have left out of your statement is that necessarily, this had to be an exchange within the 45-day time frame.   That means that your friend may have obtained that week 45 days out or 1 week out.  That makes a big difference.  Besides, I will be the first to say that there are some great weeks to be obtained through Points in Weeks within the 45-day time-frame.

  As for your statement that:

 "Points members should be required to play with their own marbles and not be able to snatch them out of the Weeks game"

    I hope that you are prepared to say the same thing for People in Weeks.   As I stated above, Weeks people are snatching weeks and units all day long from the Points system.  I suspect that many people are not quite willing to let go of their ability to do so.


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 5, 2006)

*The grids are averaged on purpose*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> Within Points, a good example is giving a mid-August week 33 on the OBX the same point total as a late October week 43.  That's just nutty!


Actually because of the start of school in many areas there is a big drop off in value starting with week 33 and running through the high fall period. That coincides with the period you are highlighting.  The same drop occurs all along the east coast and even in the less seasonal areas such as Orlando. When the kids can't go that has a real effect on many families ability to travel.  For the coastal areas it also happens to fall in prime hurricane season which would also tend to lower value in that general.  

The way points works does involve averaging values rather than strict week X worth Y valuation.  That is not a bad thing until you focus in on one specific use week and say it's out of line.  Viewed as the overall use period of weeks 33 to 43 the value is correct.  Same with the weeks 26-32 being much higher value as they are the true prime use weeks for the east coast.  Averaging values gives points users a better chance at all use times rather than focusing in on a valuable week or two and shutting all others out.  It doesn't give the big bonus to the few limited buyers of those specific weeks but spreads the wealth over all buyers that have enough points to reserve in those prime periods. 

As long as people buy in knowing what the values are - and in points they do - the field is level.  The existing weeks owners that are used to the bonus value of a week 26 won't see it in points - but they also don't have to join if they wish to keep their fixed week and trade it in one of the weeks systems.  If they do join points they will get the maximum value for that time but it may not be as high as the standalone week had by itself. Again if they don't like what they would get then they don't have to join the points party.  No one is forcing them to.  If there are no deposits from those resorts then no matter which side you reserve from - weeks or points - there isn't any inventory to claim.  The owners, not RCI, still hold the ultimate control of depositing or not. The question is once you do deposit how do you have the best chance of getting fair value back out.  In some cases it may be through weeks but I've found the majority of the time I do better with points. Everyone needs to be informed on both and use the right tool and hopefully hiding between the overblown rhetoric there are enough facts for readers to gain some insight on what will work for them.  Focusing on one geographical area or one perception of the process doesn't really offer much insight.  I like to see the experiences from many owners and different approaches used so we can all learn.


----------



## JLB (Feb 5, 2006)

Dani said:
			
		

> Indeed.  I said a few months back before I even had a Points account that perhaps those who owned within both systems were among the most savvy of owners.  As the days pass, I am more and more convinced of it.



Then one could endlessly debated with themselves, without involving others!    

The more the debate goes on the more obvious the outcome~~~some trades are best for some people in Points and some trades are best for some people in Weeks.  

Neither appears to be best all the time.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Feb 5, 2006)

*The Best Of Both Worlds -- Or More.*



			
				JLB said:
			
		

> The more the debate goes on the more obvious the outcome~~~some trades are best for some people in Points and some trades are best for some people in Weeks.
> 
> Neither appears to be best all the time.


That sounds like a good reason to belong to both kinds of timeshare exchange systems -- weeks & points -- rather than just 1. 

Then for maximum flexibility, how about belonging to points and weeks and owing a fixed or floating week at a resort you love to go to year after year without ever depositing it for exchange? 

The best of 3 worlds, eh? 

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


----------



## JLB (Feb 5, 2006)

One world's hard enough to manage.  I can't imagine 3.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 5, 2006)

JLB said:
			
		

> The more the debate goes on the more obvious the outcome~~~some trades are best for some people in Points and some trades are best for some people in Weeks.
> 
> Neither appears to be best all the time.



I totally agree with you on this point.  It's too bad that some people only choose one system to the exclusion of the other.  All they are doing is leaving good exchanges for others to reap.


----------



## JLB (Feb 5, 2006)

Or, as the schizophrenic said, "I agree, and so do I."


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 5, 2006)

No, I would never pay to join the wacky Points system just to do searchs, but another friend who bailed out of RCI Points gave me his RCI Points directory, so I do have access to all of the numbers.   Over the time I have had that book I have posted quite a few inane number combinations, and not only for crossover trades.

One can get the numbers out of the book just as easy as off of the computer.
And with the frozen calcified numbers of points assigned (except the crossover grids), a new book is usually not even necessary!

Your assumption about the Vienna week is wrong!  He obtained that quite a few months in advance, and it was during the Christmas market season, not Christmas week.  It was actually early December.  It was not a crossover into the Weeks 45-day window.  I just pulled down the Points directory to look up the exact number of points it cost, and it was 8,500, and THAT is indeed raiding the Weeks system big time!  The Allen House week he was offered was sometime in the late winter or early spring, and he told me that the points he would have had to give were the same as published in the grid for southern England.   Apparently the ''from'' indicator in the Points directory was not being applied.  I'm not sure of the week, and to the best of my recollection he said it was a 1BR.  That would be either 15,000 points through week 9 or 31,000 after that until week 19.  Either of those, again is raiding Weeks BIG TIME.  This was again, a months in advance situation.

Of course, on the other hand, my friend who bailed out of Points kept getting the run around from RCI Points on an Allen House request.

You seemed to have missed something.  Weeks members do NOT have the ability to snatch anything in the Points system, just whatever RCI decides to give back to Weeks, if anything.  An RCI employee on the TimeshareTalk board said that RCI put NOTHING back in the Weeks system for inventory taken out by Points members.  Weeks members would have the integrity of our system restored if there was a complete divorce between the systems.






			
				Dani said:
			
		

> So basically, you have not conducted any of these searches yourself, have no first-hand knowledge of how these searches work, but insist on drawing inferfences nevertheless?  That's fine, at least we  know from what point of reference you are working from.   If you ever decide to actually conduct searches in Points, I would be very interested to know your thoughts at that point.
> 
> As for your friend whom was able to obtain a Christmas week in Vienna, what you have left out of your statement is that necessarily, this had to be an exchange within the 45-day time frame.   That means that your friend may have obtained that week 45 days out or 1 week out.  That makes a big difference.  Besides, I will be the first to say that there are some great weeks to be obtained through Points in Weeks within the 45-day time-frame.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 5, 2006)

While I don't have access to exchange history, I do know the rental and resale prices on the OBX.   A week 33-35 will rent for two to three times what a week 43 will, and it MUCH easier to rent out.  A week 33 will sell for $3-5,000. while a week 43 is not difficult to acquire for $500.  These are VERY unequal weeks, as shown by the market.

Children are still out of school in week 33 (mandated by the legislature) in North Carolina and it is still beach weather.  Week 43 is a decent fishing week, but not swimming in the ocean weather.

While I agree that value starts dropping after week 32, the drop is gradual, not the dramatic drop that occurs with RCI Point values.  Week 43 is substantially overvalued and week 33 is substantially undervalued.  Thats what happens with the overaveraging.  A week 43 owner may make out like a bandit to put his week in points, but a week 33 owner would be a fool to do so.  He would be much better off either using a weeks based exchange system or renting his week out and using the money for cut-rate RCI rentals.

With the crossover grids, the situation is worse.  There a week 41 in October has the same value as a week 27 (July 4th).  Wacky!  Again, someone using a week 41 for Points for Deposit may be a wise man, but someone using a week 27 for that purpose is a fool.   A Points member doing a crossover trade for a week 27 is raiding Weeks big time, but one doing so for a week 41 doesn't have his brain in gear yet!





			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> Actually because of the start of school in many areas there is a big drop off in value starting with week 33 and running through the high fall period. That coincides with the period you are highlighting.  The same drop occurs all along the east coast and even in the less seasonal areas such as Orlando. When the kids can't go that has a real effect on many families ability to travel.  For the coastal areas it also happens to fall in prime hurricane season which would also tend to lower value in that general.
> 
> The way points works does involve averaging values rather than strict week X worth Y valuation.  That is not a bad thing until you focus in on one specific use week and say it's out of line.  Viewed as the overall use period of weeks 33 to 43 the value is correct.  Same with the weeks 26-32 being much higher value as they are the true prime use weeks for the east coast.  Averaging values gives points users a better chance at all use times rather than focusing in on a valuable week or two and shutting all others out.  It doesn't give the big bonus to the few limited buyers of those specific weeks but spreads the wealth over all buyers that have enough points to reserve in those prime periods.
> 
> As long as people buy in knowing what the values are - and in points they do - the field is level.  The existing weeks owners that are used to the bonus value of a week 26 won't see it in points - but they also don't have to join if they wish to keep their fixed week and trade it in one of the weeks systems.  If they do join points they will get the maximum value for that time but it may not be as high as the standalone week had by itself. Again if they don't like what they would get then they don't have to join the points party.  No one is forcing them to.  If there are no deposits from those resorts then no matter which side you reserve from - weeks or points - there isn't any inventory to claim.  The owners, not RCI, still hold the ultimate control of depositing or not. The question is once you do deposit how do you have the best chance of getting fair value back out.  In some cases it may be through weeks but I've found the majority of the time I do better with points. Everyone needs to be informed on both and use the right tool and hopefully hiding between the overblown rhetoric there are enough facts for readers to gain some insight on what will work for them.  Focusing on one geographical area or one perception of the process doesn't really offer much insight.  I like to see the experiences from many owners and different approaches used so we can all learn.


----------



## JeffV (Feb 5, 2006)

I take back what I was tempted to say.


----------



## Dani (Feb 5, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> You seemed to have missed something.  Weeks members do NOT have the ability to snatch anything in the Points system, just whatever RCI decides to give back to Weeks, if anything.  An RCI employee on the TimeshareTalk board said that RCI put NOTHING back in the Weeks system for inventory taken out by Points members.  Weeks members would have the integrity of our system restored if there was a complete divorce between the systems.



  I have not missed a thing...I assume that you have heard of PFD


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 5, 2006)

Dani said:
			
		

> I have not missed a thing...I assume that you have heard of PFD



PFD is used by POINTS members, not Weeks members.  It does not give a Weeks member access to Points inventory!


----------



## Dani (Feb 6, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> PFD is used by POINTS members, not Weeks members.  It does not give a Weeks member access to Points inventory!



  What it does is give people who are in Points the opportunity to use Weeks that are _not in _ Points the opportunity to use those weeks within the Points system.     I think that you can figure out the net effect of this....especially in light of the over-pointing of certain weeks.


----------



## boyblue (Feb 6, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> PFD is used by POINTS members, not Weeks members.  It does not give a Weeks member access to Points inventory!



No but it does give Weeks members access to weeks we put into PFD a year ahead of points members.

Given your argument, in situations where the points system encourages members to deposit because of "overpointing" the weeks members benefit because they see those weeks.  If it's a combination points/weeks resort, weeks members see it first.


----------



## Bill4728 (Feb 6, 2006)

I was able to trade my 1 bd, week 40  Riviera Beach (in SoCal) for a 2 bd, week 40, Marriott Newport Beach ( 15 miles down the road).  How is any trade like that possible in RCI points? It isn't.  

Yes, RCI points does have their good points, but when I get that kind of up-grade, I'm a weeks fan!


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 6, 2006)

*Great trade - proof of the problem*



			
				Bill4728 said:
			
		

> I was able to trade my 1 bd, week 40  Riviera Beach (in SoCal) for a 2 bd, week 40, Marriott Newport Beach ( 15 miles down the road).  How is any trade like that possible in RCI points? It isn't.
> 
> Yes, RCI points does have their good points, but when I get that kind of up-grade, I'm a weeks fan!


Bill - Thats great but it also proves exactly what is so basically unfair in the week for week system. You got a great upgrade but what is awaiting the 2bd, week 40 owner?  Does he take your week - an obvious downgrade by your own words - or does he also grab something better? Even if he does what does the "better" owner take? Somewhere in the path a top value week owner has to lose their time or take a significant downgrade just to get something. Now some may willingly take a location vs size or quality trade but most likely most want something equal or better than what they gave up. There aren't enough units to give you and many others upgrades and fulfill the equal trades of those top weeks. Plus what about all the lesser time at the bottom that was used to upgrade from. Where does that go?  See why there is a need to rent or it will sit unused? And should only the bottom deposits be rented? What are they worth? Nope - there needs to be a cross section of rentals to even the system out. It is the fatal flaw in week for week time.  It is weeks owners that are raiding weeks not Points traders. 

Now you could get that same week in points but it wouldn't be a free upgrade anymore - you would pay more points than your deposit was worth. And that better weeks owner would have more points to spend. That is a market in action vs the fixed, week for week, secret barter of the bad old days. 

Now both work right now and in fact some times a knowledgable weeks owner can do better (as in cheaper) than a points owner.  There can be a cost for the ease of points trades in some cases vs the luck or skill of weeks. But as the pool of weeks dries up either from owners switching to points, renting directly rather than through RCI or the units go to mini-systems those trades will decline. That trend has already been well documented and blamed, incorrectly IMHO, on rentals.  It is actually the slow end to weeks as the primary trade method that was happening with or without RCI Points coming along.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

boyblue said:
			
		

> No but it does give Weeks members access to weeks we put into PFD a year ahead of points members.
> 
> Given your argument, in situations where the points system encourages members to deposit because of "overpointing" the weeks members benefit because they see those weeks.  If it's a combination points/weeks resort, weeks members see it first.



The overpointed weeks are not the prime weeks however.  They are more marginal weeks as to season, location, or both.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

*How systems handle oversupply*

The real problem for exchange systems is oversupply, and how they handle it tells a lot about which system is best for exchangers and which is best for RCI.

In Weeks, the adjsutment for supply and demand of the market kicks in when an oversupply situation occurs, cheapening the price in trading power.  A member then is able to make the trade and have a smile on his face.  In reality it is not a trade up, as the market has said it is an equal trade based on the market forces of supply and demand.

In Points, where there are no market forces of supply and demand, the inventory just sits there until it becomes ''excess'' for RCI to rent off to non-members for a profit.

Which system is really better for timeshare owner/exchangers? In Weeks, an oversupply situation puts those weeks in the hands of timeshare owner/exchangers who support their HOAs with m/f's and support RCI with annual dues.  In Points, they end up in the hands of non-member renters who do neither.





			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> Bill - Thats great but it also proves exactly what is so basically unfair in the week for week system. You got a great upgrade but what is awaiting the 2bd, week 40 owner?  Does he take your week - an obvious downgrade by your own words - or does he also grab something better? Even if he does what does the "better" owner take? Somewhere in the path a top value week owner has to lose their time or take a significant downgrade just to get something. Now some may willingly take a location vs size or quality trade but most likely most want something equal or better than what they gave up. There aren't enough units to give you and many others upgrades and fulfill the equal trades of those top weeks. Plus what about all the lesser time at the bottom that was used to upgrade from. Where does that go?  See why there is a need to rent or it will sit unused? And should only the bottom deposits be rented? What are they worth? Nope - there needs to be a cross section of rentals to even the system out. It is the fatal flaw in week for week time.  It is weeks owners that are raiding weeks not Points traders.
> 
> Now you could get that same week in points but it wouldn't be a free upgrade anymore - you would pay more points than your deposit was worth. And that better weeks owner would have more points to spend. That is a market in action vs the fixed, week for week, secret barter of the bad old days.
> 
> Now both work right now and in fact some times a knowledgable weeks owner can do better (as in cheaper) than a points owner.  There can be a cost for the ease of points trades in some cases vs the luck or skill of weeks. But as the pool of weeks dries up either from owners switching to points, renting directly rather than through RCI or the units go to mini-systems those trades will decline. That trend has already been well documented and blamed, incorrectly IMHO, on rentals.  It is actually the slow end to weeks as the primary trade method that was happening with or without RCI Points coming along.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

A better week, does not necessarily have more points to spend.  In the corrupt cesspool of RCI Points numbers many weeks are cheated and many are overpointed.  This results from a number of factors, including pandering to developers in sales, overaveraging necessitated by limitations of publication space that relies on a paper and ink system, and the fact that the term ''sold out resort'' has a sinister double meaning in the corrupt world of RCI Points.




			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> Bill - Thats great but it also proves exactly what is so basically unfair in the week for week system. You got a great upgrade but what is awaiting the 2bd, week 40 owner?  Does he take your week - an obvious downgrade by your own words - or does he also grab something better? Even if he does what does the "better" owner take? Somewhere in the path a top value week owner has to lose their time or take a significant downgrade just to get something. Now some may willingly take a location vs size or quality trade but most likely most want something equal or better than what they gave up. There aren't enough units to give you and many others upgrades and fulfill the equal trades of those top weeks. Plus what about all the lesser time at the bottom that was used to upgrade from. Where does that go?  See why there is a need to rent or it will sit unused? And should only the bottom deposits be rented? What are they worth? Nope - there needs to be a cross section of rentals to even the system out. It is the fatal flaw in week for week time.  It is weeks owners that are raiding weeks not Points traders.
> 
> Now you could get that same week in points but it wouldn't be a free upgrade anymore - you would pay more points than your deposit was worth. And that better weeks owner would have more points to spend. That is a market in action vs the fixed, week for week, secret barter of the bad old days.
> 
> Now both work right now and in fact some times a knowledgable weeks owner can do better (as in cheaper) than a points owner.  There can be a cost for the ease of points trades in some cases vs the luck or skill of weeks. But as the pool of weeks dries up either from owners switching to points, renting directly rather than through RCI or the units go to mini-systems those trades will decline. That trend has already been well documented and blamed, incorrectly IMHO, on rentals.  It is actually the slow end to weeks as the primary trade method that was happening with or without RCI Points coming along.


----------



## JeffV (Feb 7, 2006)

So is it your contention that all oversupply in Weeks goes to owner/exchangers while only in Points the oversupply is rented out?  How did you reach that wonderful conclusion?


			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> Which system is really better for timeshare owner/exchangers? In Weeks, an oversupply situation puts those weeks in the hands of timeshare owner/exchangers who support their HOAs with m/f's and support RCI with annual dues.  In Points, they end up in the hands of non-member renters who do neither.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

Read the rest of the post Jeff.

In Weeks, trading power adjusts for supply and demand, and in oversupply situations, the trading power needed adjusts downward, allowing members with less trading power to get the weeks as trades.

In Points, where the calcified numbers cannot adjust for supply and demand, the inventory just sits there.  It becomes ''excess'' for RCI to rent out to non-members.

Why do you think RCI is pushing their points numbers racket so hard?  It gives them more to rent out!  That does not benefit timesharers.




			
				JeffV said:
			
		

> So is it your contention that all oversupply in Weeks goes to owner/exchangers while only in Points the oversupply is rented out?  How did you reach that wonderful conclusion?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 7, 2006)

Bill4728 said:
			
		

> I was able to trade my 1 bd, week 40  Riviera Beach (in SoCal) for a 2 bd, week 40, Marriott Newport Beach ( 15 miles down the road).  How is any trade like that possible in RCI points? It isn't.
> 
> Yes, RCI points does have their good points, but when I get that kind of up-grade, I'm a weeks fan!



I totally agree that the reason to be in weeks is the trade ups.  That's why I am a weeks owner and advocate.   If something is available in weeks as a huge trade up, I'd do it first.  The problem is that in order to get those trade ups, I need to plan too far in advance, I can't go on weekends and availability is pot luck.  I don't get to choose the location or the room view.  So, I supplement my timeshare portfolio with point resorts to give me those benefits that weeks don't.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 7, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Read the rest of the post Jeff.
> 
> In Weeks, trading power adjusts for supply and demand, and in oversupply situations, the trading power needed adjusts downward, allowing members with less trading power to get the weeks as trades.
> 
> ...



This is just spin for what is really going on.  That is TRADE UPs.  That is what weeks exchange is all about.  And, it's what you are really trying to protect.

Every time there is a trade up, someone else trades down.  Every time there is a bonus week or unexchanged week, someone got nothing for their deposit.  It is a ZERO SUM GAME.  The people who benefit from points the most are those people who traditional traded down or got nothing for their deposits.

So, many weeks owners who were used to trade ups in the past are concerned that those trade ups are going away slowly, but surely.   Here's some news for you.  Those were starting to go away already before RCI Points was created.  RCI Points turned the table and they are now giving something to people who used to get nothing.  There are giving bonus weeks in proportion to how much of a trade down an owner is willing to take.  All this is happening at the expense of those who were used to an abundance of trade ups.

Even if RCI Points was perfectly executed, staunch weeks proponents will be against it.  That's because, in their heart, they know that it levels the playing field and limits their opportunities for trade ups.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

Points cannot be perfectly executed because it takes supply and demand, which are dynamic not static, out of the equation.  That is what makes it a fundamentally flawed system.

When the market says a trade is equal, it IS equal.  Where the zero sum game comes in is with a system that shovels inventory out to non-members and leaves less there for members.  The calcified numbers of Points that cannot adjust for supply and demand to reduce prices to compensate for oversupply coupled with the RCI rentals does this.

If you want to see real trade ups, look at Points not Weeks.  The corrupt numbers of Points insitutionalizes trades up, that would never happen in Weeks.  I have cited some examples on these boards in the past.

Overpointing of overbuilt areas is one of the areas where Points allows systematic trades up.  Why do you think so many of the strong Points advocates on these boards just happen to own in overbuilt areas?  They are trying to defend their institutionalized trades up.  They do not benefit from a system based on supply and demand because they own in areas with an oversupply.




			
				BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> This is just spin for what is really going on.  That is TRADE UPs.  That is what weeks exchange is all about.  And, it's what you are really trying to protect.
> 
> Every time there is a trade up, someone else trades down.  Every time there is a bonus week or unexchanged week, someone got nothing for their deposit.  It is a ZERO SUM GAME.  The people who benefit from points the most are those people who traditional traded down or got nothing for their deposits.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dani (Feb 7, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> The overpointed weeks are not the prime weeks however.  They are more marginal weeks as to season, location, or both.



  And that Carolinian, is exactly my point.    What do you think happens to those marginal, over-pointed weeks once they are converted to Points in PFD?  That's why I say that there is indeed a raiding going on...but it's not in Weeks.  That is also why I said two pages ago...place your weak traders in Points.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 7, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Points cannot be perfectly executed because it takes supply and demand, which are dynamic not static, out of the equation.  That is what makes it a fundamentally flawed system.
> 
> When the market says a trade is equal, it IS equal.  Where the zero sum game comes in is with a system that shovels inventory out to non-members and leaves less there for members.  The calcified numbers of Points that cannot adjust for supply and demand to reduce prices to compensate for oversupply coupled with the RCI rentals does this.
> 
> ...



This is an unfair comparison.  You compare points against perfection and you compare weeks against what exists.  That's false logic.  RCI weeks NEVER was perfect and never will be.  Any system that provides differential value is closer to being market based than one that isn't like RCI weeks.

The current weeks system is NOT market based.  Yes, there is a dynamic element to it, but it doesn't make it market based.  A roulette wheel is dynamic.  The number that it lands on changes with every spin.  Weeks trading is a roulette wheel with hidden trading power formulas and wildly gyrating values.

If weeks exchange were truly market based such as what you allege, then there would never be a situation like what happened in South Africa this year on Black Sunday.  Using your logic, Black Sunday should have never occurred if trading power formulas were truly "market based."  But, it did happen and the same broad averaging that you allege for points was exposed.

So indeed, weeks and points both have trading power values that have been programmed and fixed into their system.  The only difference is that in Points you can see the values.  In weeks, you can't.  And, with points, if you have more trading power than you need, you get some back for use elsewhere.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Feb 7, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> ... Overpointing of overbuilt areas is one of the areas where Points allows systematic trades up.  Why do you think so many of the strong Points advocates on these boards just happen to own in overbuilt areas?  They are trying to defend their institutionalized trades up.  They do not benefit from a system based on supply and demand because they own in areas with an oversupply.





			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> …
> 
> If you want to see real trade ups, look at Points not Weeks.  *The corrupt numbers of Points insitutionalizes trades up, that would never happen in Weeks.  *I have cited some examples on these boards in the past.…


Now you're confusing me again, Steve.

In the past you have defended the critical importance of weeks trading because it allows the owner of low value off-season blue weeks in overbuilt areas to trade up to a more valuable unit if they know how to play the game.  I also recall you citing specific examples of resorts where the ability of owners to "trade up" their blue weeks in weeks was vital to the financial health of the resort.  I also recall many statements by you that Points would undermine the viability of the entire timeshare world by removing the ability to trade up lesser weeks that is embedded into the Weeks system.

So, on one hand you maintain that institutionalized trades up in Weeks for resort owners in overbuilt areas are vital to the the future of timesharing.  On the other hand, you propound that institutionalized trades up in Points for resort owners in overbuilt areas is a pernicous manipulation of the timesharing system.

Help me out, here, Steve.  For the life of me, I can't figure out if you believe that institutionalized trading up is good or bad.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Feb 7, 2006)

Dani said:
			
		

> And that Carolinian, is exactly my point.    What do you think happens to those marginal, over-pointed weeks once they are converted to Points in PFD?  That's why I say that there is indeed a raiding going on...but it's not in Weeks.  That is also why I said two pages ago...place your weak traders in Points.


"Ahhhh, Dani", Trog says as the light bulb illuminates over his head.

If a resort in one of those overbuilt, overpointed areas is having problems with blue week owners bailing, what that resort should do is institute a cheap points conversion program.  I understand that conversion can be done for only a few hundred dollars if the resort charges only the cost of the paperwork without adding a huge middleman markup).  

The blue week owners then deposit those overpointed weeks into the Points system, thereby converting those poor value blue weeks into decent valued weeks from the Points inventory.  Savvy resorts with lots of blue weeks currently train their owners on the tricks of trading up in Weeks system; those resorts then would simply train the owners on trading up in the Points system. And it would be easier to explain because the resort could show exactly how it would work in points - how many points the owner would get for depositing their blue week, and what types of weeks they could obtain with that blue week.

Contrary then to what we have been led to believe, Points could be the salvation for resorts with bailing blue week owners, not the death knell.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 7, 2006)

T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> "Ahhhh, Dani", Trog says as the light bulb illuminates over his head.
> 
> If a resort in one of those overbuilt, overpointed areas is having problems with blue week owners bailing, what that resort should do is institute a cheap points conversion program.  I understand that conversion can be done for only a few hundred dollars if the resort charges only the cost of the paperwork without adding a huge middleman markup).
> 
> ...



Indeed, smart resorts are doing just that.  Take Rayburn in Texas as an example.  Their blue weeks make great entry level RCI Points packages that gets weeks owners into the game for PFD.  

I think Bruce CZ owns there.  And, he is the single biggest pillager of airline tickets in all of timesharing.  And, he does it with weeks that he selectively converts to points.  When you see prime weeks being rented, you can thank CZ.  It's probably just RCI trying to cover the cost of all of his airline tickets.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

It is a raiding by POINTS members, not Weeks members.  Weeks members cannot do PFD.




			
				Dani said:
			
		

> And that Carolinian, is exactly my point.    What do you think happens to those marginal, over-pointed weeks once they are converted to Points in PFD?  That's why I say that there is indeed a raiding going on...but it's not in Weeks.  That is also why I said two pages ago...place your weak traders in Points.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

When you see prime weeks being rented, you can also think of the info from several RCI insiders about the prime weeks deposited for exchange that were deposited directly into the rental pool and had nothing to do with PFD, cruises, etc.





			
				BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> Indeed, smart resorts are doing just that.  Take Rayburn in Texas as an example.  Their blue weeks make great entry level RCI Points packages that gets weeks owners into the game for PFD.
> 
> I think Bruce CZ owns there.  And, he is the single biggest pillager of airline tickets in all of timesharing.  And, he does it with weeks that he selectively converts to points.  When you see prime weeks being rented, you can thank CZ.  It's probably just RCI trying to cover the cost of all of his airline tickets.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

As long as there is a hybrid system, that could work for a limited number of resorts.  If RCI elminates Weeks, eliminates PFD (I wish!) or if too many resorts did it, then it wouldn't work.

Also many of the overbuilt areas have weeks that are ''phony red'' rather than blue.




			
				T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> "Ahhhh, Dani", Trog says as the light bulb illuminates over his head.
> 
> If a resort in one of those overbuilt, overpointed areas is having problems with blue week owners bailing, what that resort should do is institute a cheap points conversion program.  I understand that conversion can be done for only a few hundred dollars if the resort charges only the cost of the paperwork without adding a huge middleman markup).
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

First, in many of the overpointed areas, the off season weeks are ''phony red'' rather than blue.

I have always defended trades up within a reasonable range, not excessive trades up.  Since GPN first came out, I have spoken of trading within a reasonable range, not carte blanche trades up.

I have also pointed out that the market may well value particular inventory  more or less than some timesharers would.  That is NOT trading up.  That is the market setting values.

I have always pointed out that the 45 window is critical to the financial health of resorts with off season weeks (whether called blue or red), and that is really even trades since it is common in the leisure travel industry to discount last minute inventory.  Also, since a late deposit has lower trading power, it stands to reason that a late withdrawal should, too.  Some points people want to call the 45 day window ''trading up''.  It isn't.  That seems to be your confusion as well.  






			
				T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> Now you're confusing me again, Steve.
> 
> In the past you have defended the critical importance of weeks trading because it allows the owner of low value off-season blue weeks in overbuilt areas to trade up to a more valuable unit if they know how to play the game.  I also recall you citing specific examples of resorts where the ability of owners to "trade up" their blue weeks in weeks was vital to the financial health of the resort.  I also recall many statements by you that Points would undermine the viability of the entire timeshare world by removing the ability to trade up lesser weeks that is embedded into the Weeks system.
> 
> ...


----------



## grupp (Feb 7, 2006)

T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> Savvy resorts with lots of blue weeks currently train their owners on the tricks of trading up in Weeks system; those resorts then would simply train the owners on trading up in the Points system. And it would be easier to explain because the resort could show exactly how it would work in points - how many points the owner would get for depositing their blue week, and what types of weeks they could obtain with that blue week.
> 
> Contrary then to what we have been led to believe, Points could be the salvation for resorts with bailing blue week owners, not the death knell.



So you would have to convince all the people who were sold the worthless blue weeks with the promise they could trade the week for anyplace in the world, that it is now good to convert their week to points so they can use the points to go on a nice vacation every 2 or 3 years. Well, I guess that is better than no vacations.

Gary


----------



## short (Feb 7, 2006)

*Exchanging like tax law.*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> Points cannot be perfectly executed because it takes supply and demand, which are dynamic not static, out of the equation.  That is what makes it a fundamentally flawed system.



Carolinian,

Points would be a fundamentally flawed system whether it is dynamic or static.  If point went to dynamic someone would be on these boards complaining that it wasn't fair or the system was broken.

You know the saying "You cannot please all of the people all of the time."

If Weeks were fundamentally fair then popular weeks like Manhatten Club or bulk space bank weeks in Hawaii would last for months.

Exchanging is just like income tax law.  It is neither fair or unfair, its just a way of collecting taxes.  A redistribution of wealth.

Short


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Feb 7, 2006)

grupp said:
			
		

> So you would have to convince all the people who were sold the worthless blue weeks with the promise they could trade the week for anyplace in the world, that it is now good to convert their week to points so they can use the points to go on a nice vacation every 2 or 3 years. Well, I guess that is better than no vacations.
> 
> Gary


The problem that has been posted before by Carolinian is that many resorts are not financially viable of off-season week owners bail.  To ensure viability it is vital that those blue week owners be able to trade up.

As we all know, the "trade your blue week for anyplace in the world" pitch is a lie.  It is more reasonable to try to trade up modestly, though.

Doing so in weeks is a  hit and miss prospect, and often relies on doing last minute trading.

If Carolinian is correct, though, that the Points system assigns improperly high values to many of these off season weeks, then the value of those blue weeks increases.  Owners of those weeks can convert to Points, and take advantage of the alleged overvaluing of their weeks.  Plus, in the points system they can collateralize that value ten weeks out (if they want to make trades) or even further out if they want to collateralize that value into items such airline tickets.

Plus, if I'm a resort operator trying to keep my blue weeks owners in the fold, it's a lot easier for me to demonstrate the value of staying with the resort if I use Points instead of Weeks.  With points I can sit down and show them specifically how it would work, what trades they *will* be able to make, not what they *might* be able to do, if they wait until 60 days before check-in.

Lots of those people aren't getting anything from their blue weeks now, are trying to walk away from their resort, and have stopped paying annual fees.  If the week is overvalued in Points, that may be a way for those people to be able to get value from their ownership that they are not getting now - and that they wouldn't get in weeks.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

I have pointed out that having access to last minute trades in the 45-day window, which is what MOST t/s salesmen pitch, not a general trade up, is vital to offseason weeks (whether blue in many areas or ''red'' in some of the overbuilt areas) value for exchagne owners at those resorts.  Some points advocates seem to want to incorrectly call 45 day window trades a ''rtrade up'' or otherwise to draw other conclusions from that position.  In doing so, they misrepresent my position.

The over pointed weeks are not generally the offseason weeks in areas with blue time.  They may be off season weeks in overbuilt areas that designate everything red.  Pink weeks are, in fact, overall, the most likely to be overpointed.  Also resorts in developer sales are more likely to be overpointed due to RCI Points pandering to develpers in sales.

The frills like airline tickets also distort the exchange system, one reason that I have opposed that aspect of the Points program since it was first rolled out as ''GPN''.  The health of the core exchange system should not be sacraficed for such unnecessary frills.  I have called it ''polluting the exchange system'' since RCI Points was called GPN.

SItting down with a points table would show anybody that the points system is useless for some weeks except for crossover trades into the Weeks 45 day inventory for 9000 points.  That is now the big pitch at Points resorts to sell offseason weeks.  Without that, a blue week would probably be almost unsellable in points.  The way RCI is downgrading the 45 day window, all resorts should be looking to other markets than exchange owners for off season weeks.  The problem is that some areas don't have such markets.  Fortunately my home resorts are in areas that do.





			
				T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> The problem that has been posted before by Carolinian is that many resorts are not financially viable of off-season week owners bail.  To ensure viability it is vital that those blue week owners be able to trade up.
> 
> As we all know, the "trade your blue week for anyplace in the world" pitch is a lie.  It is more reasonable to try to trade up modestly, though.
> 
> ...


----------



## grupp (Feb 7, 2006)

*What happens to the Blue weeks?*

Steve
I  don't disagree with you that points may be an option for the blue weeks. But this really only an advantage at resorts with relatively low fees, such as Rayburn. 

Also, all the points discussions centers on one side of the equation. But what happens to the blue weeks that are deposited for points that no one wants at any price? It has been argued previously in this thread that it is a zero sum game. So if, I were to deposit my 2 blue weeks for enough points get a red week and, no one wants my blue weeks, there must be loser somewhere. 

Gary


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Feb 7, 2006)

grupp said:
			
		

> Steve
> I  don't disagree with you that points may be an option for the blue weeks. But this really only an advantage at resorts with relatively low fees, such as Rayburn.
> 
> Also, all the points discussions centers on one side of the equation. But what happens to the blue weeks that are deposited for points that no one wants at any price? It has been argued previously in this thread that it is a zero sum game. So if, I were to deposit my 2 blue weeks for enough points get a red week and, no one wants my blue weeks, there must be loser somewhere.
> ...


So, in other words, the issue that Carolinian has been thumping about (the unrealistic Point values assigned to weeks) is self-correcting.  Because if RCI doesn't bring the values in line, RCI is going to get stuck with a bunch of inventory they can't move.  Right?


----------



## grupp (Feb 7, 2006)

*Are some blue weeks worth zero points?*



			
				T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> So, in other words, the issue that Carolinian has been thumping about (the unrealistic Point values assigned to weeks) is self-correcting.  Because if RCI doesn't bring the values in line, RCI is going to get stuck with a bunch of inventory they can't move.  Right?




I don't know, which is why I asked the question. Ideally, what you propose seems like it would be the answer, but is that really is what happens? Although, if that is the case, as the point values decreased wouldn't some blue weeks become just as worthless in the points system as they are in weeks?

Gary


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 7, 2006)

grupp said:
			
		

> I don't know, which is why I asked the question. Ideally, what you propose seems like it would be the answer, but is that really is what happens? Although, if that is the case, as the point values decreased wouldn't some blue weeks become just as worthless in the points system as they are in weeks?
> 
> Gary



In a market based system, a blue week will be worth exactly what its worth....next to nothing.


----------



## Dani (Feb 7, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> It is a raiding by POINTS members, not Weeks members.  Weeks members cannot do PFD.


 
   Using that logic, does that mean that since I am a Weeks member who also happens to be a Points member that it is okay for me to raid Weeks with my Points?  You are speaking in semantics.   The result is the same.   People are being allowed to use weeks that are currently in the Weeks systems to raid points.


----------



## Dani (Feb 7, 2006)

T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> "Ahhhh, Dani", Trog says as the light bulb illuminates over his head.
> 
> If a resort in one of those overbuilt, overpointed areas is having problems with blue week owners bailing, what that resort should do is institute a cheap points conversion program.  I understand that conversion can be done for only a few hundred dollars if the resort charges only the cost of the paperwork without adding a huge middleman markup).
> 
> ...



  That does not sound like a bad idea.  It would seem that in many cases, it would be more beneficial to deposit a blue or even a fringe red week in Points providing the conversion costs were cheap enough.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> So, in other words, the issue that Carolinian has been thumping about (the unrealistic Point values assigned to weeks) is self-correcting.  Because if RCI doesn't bring the values in line, RCI is going to get stuck with a bunch of inventory they can't move.  Right?



The idea that there are many people out there who would pay two or more m/f's to trade for one week somewhere else is misplaced.  Even the Points t/s salesmen don't push that line.  They seem to know that dog won't hunt!

The whole rigid Points system is designed to create an artifical ''excess'' for RCI to rent out.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

Most color codes are outdated.  There are blue weeks where resorts are usually full, and those weeks have more value than deep offseason weeks.

There are also pink offseason weeks in overbuilt areas that have a massive oversupply, so there can be ''red'' weeks with less value than some blue weeks.

There are quite a few blue weeks in France, for instance, that have stronger demand vs. supply ratios than many ''red'' weeks in overbuilt Orlando, based on exchange availibility.




			
				BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> In a market based system, a blue week will be worth exactly what its worth....next to nothing.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

*blue to red trade up in RCI Points*

Here's one example of a trade up that is availible every day in RCI Points:

Sandcatle Village II in inland New Bern, NC, 2BR blue week 12 (March) = 44,000 points

BIS Ocean Pines, oceanfront on the OBX, 2BR red week 33 (August) = 42,500 points

that is a substantial upgrade in location as well as season, and you even have ''change'' left over!

They are both Points resorts, so you do not have to even use the unfair generic crossover grids to do it!


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Feb 7, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Here's one example of a trade up that is availible every day in RCI Points:
> 
> Sandcatle Village II in inland New Bern, NC, 2BR blue week 12 (March) = 44,000 points
> 
> ...


Doesn't that help solve the problem of blue week "owner abandonment" by making those weeks more valuable?


----------



## "Roger" (Feb 7, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> ...
> The whole rigid Points system is designed to create an artifical ''excess'' for RCI to rent out.


Take a look at posts 8, 12, and 13.  The Weeks system is what would allow for skimming and renting.

(Walt -- If you are paying attention.  How did Points help disguise the fact that Embassy Maui units were being rented?)


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 7, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Here's one example of a trade up that is availible every day in RCI Points:
> 
> Sandcatle Village II in inland New Bern, NC, 2BR blue week 12 (March) = 44,000 points
> 
> ...



So what?  For every example you come up with that isn't fair, there are 100's that are fair or way more so than in weeks.  The same is true for other things outside of timesharing.  For every 100 people you find that believes the world is spherical, you can find 1 that believes it's flat.

You bring the outlier case and generalize it to the whole system.  That's wrong.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

For the RCI Weeks system or any exchange system to maintain its integrity, the entity running it must not have its hand in the system's pocket.  Once RCI got on the rental kick it suddenly had a very serious conflict of interest.
The deHaan model of the Weeks system was great, but Cendant has certainly prostituted it since they took over through the rentals.

The key to integrity is whether anyone has an incentive to cook the books.
Rentals by exchange companies to the general public create a huge such incentive.

The Points program produces an ''excess'' automatically by its rigid numbers and the fact that they cannot adjust for changes in supply and demand.  RCI has to cook the books to make Weeks produce an excess in better weeks, as there is always going to be more demand than supply.  The rentals do create an incentive to do so.  If the exchange company is not renting weeks out, there is no incentive to skim.  That is why rentals are a bigger threat to the system than the unfair interface between Weeks and Points.





			
				Roger said:
			
		

> This is EXACTLY what my wife said after our first timeshare trade.  In points, you have to get back one for one.  Weeks allows a company to manipulate people to,_ *on average*_, trade down.  (I say, on average, because you need to throw in some up trades for appearance.)  When the average trade is a trade down, the company can skim off the top and rent the best inventory.
> 
> This has created one of the biggest ironies on TUG.  A whole crew of people, entirely suspicious of RCI, have been defending the very system that would allow RCI to accomplish what they accuse them of doing.


----------



## "Roger" (Feb 7, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> ...
> The key to integrity is whether anyone has an incentive to cook the books.
> Rentals by exchange companies to the general public create a huge such incentive...



So now you have established that RCI (and II for that matter) have the incentive (make more profit by renting).  What posts 8, 12. and 13 speak to is opportunity.  It is Weeks that provides the opportunity.

By the way, I just put 70,000 worth of points into the system before looking at this board.  You know what.  I'll bet I get 70,000 points out.  I do not have that assurance in Weeks.  I like having published numbers, control of my own destiny, etc.  Yes, I can see why Weeks owners are restless.  Any economic class will tell you that if you have secret pricing, it will create suspicion and distrust.  Weeks is a text book example.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

RCI's twin policies of points and rentals are enough of a threat to the system, that I am riding my RCI membership until it expixes with decreased deposits and relying more on independents.

RCI can milk either system.  With Points, the rigid numbers will automatically give them a harvest of ''excess''.  In Weeks they have to manipulate the system.  The exchange deposits automatically placed in the rental pool as reported by RCI employees show that things are not on the up and up.

When it comes to the integrity problems at RCI, both systems are vulnerable.
If the rigid numbers do not produce enough rental inventory, they can always just take it right out of the system, even cancel confirmed exchanges, to get it.

As long as an exchange company has a major operation going to rent to the general public, it has a massive conflict of interest and its integrity is in serious question.

Do I ''hate'' RCI as Perry M recently charged?  No.  I am very disappointed in the direction RCI is moving.  I would like nothing better than to have the good old pre-Cendant RCI back.  One can always keep his fingers crossed that they will rethink the Cendant split up, spin RCI off as a stand alone company and hire Christel deHaan to come in as a consultant to help put things right!




			
				Roger said:
			
		

> So now you have established that RCI (and II for that matter) have the incentive (make more profit by renting).  What posts 8, 12. and 13 speak to is opportunity.  It is Weeks that provides the opportunity.
> 
> By the way, I just put 70,000 worth of points into the system before looking at this board.  You know what.  I'll bet I get 70,000 points out.  I do not have that assurance in Weeks.  I like having published numbers, control of my own destiny, etc.  Yes, I can see why Weeks owners are restless.  Any economic class will tell you that if you have secret pricing, it will create suspicion and distrust.  Weeks is a text book example.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

You greatly exagerate the number that are fair.  RCI Points is a cesspool of corrupt numbers.  

Some are systematic, like giving overbuilt areas numbers that are unjustified given the oversupply in those areas or pandering to developers in sales.
Prime weeks and locations on just about any of the crossover girds are another big area where there is a systematic problem.




			
				BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> So what?  For every example you come up with that isn't fair, there are 100's that are fair or way more so than in weeks.  The same is true for other things outside of timesharing.  For every 100 people you find that believes the world is spherical, you can find 1 that believes it's flat.
> 
> You bring the outlier case and generalize it to the whole system.  That's wrong.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 7, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> For the RCI Weeks system or any exchange system to maintain its integrity, the entity running it must not have its hand in the system's pocket.



It is far easier to manipulate a secret system than it is to manipulate an open system.  So, using your logic, RCI weeks is the more susceptible to corruption than RCI Points.  If you don't trust the company running the exchange, then it doesn't matter what system they run, you shouldn't belong.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

A week 12 in eastern North Carolina is not the deep offseason.  On the OBX resorts are typically full for spring break then.  The threat of owner bailout is really in deep offseason.  In New Bern, deep offseason at this resort is 20,500 points.




			
				T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> Doesn't that help solve the problem of blue week "owner abandonment" by making those weeks more valuable?


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 7, 2006)

When they flat take exchange deposits out of the system and move them to rentals, as has been reported by RCI employees, there is absolutely no difference between the systems on ease of manipulation!  Points people have a false sense of security in that regard.




			
				BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> It is far easier to manipulate a secret system than it is to manipulate an open system.  So, using your logic, RCI weeks is the more susceptible to corruption than RCI Points.  If you don't trust the company running the exchange, then it doesn't matter what system they run, you shouldn't belong.


----------



## huestous (Feb 7, 2006)

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> If you don't trust the company running the exchange, then it doesn't matter what system they run, you shouldn't belong.


Exactly.

Why spend so much time and effort barking at the moon?

The utility of a users group is the sharing of strategies to exploit the flaws in a given system.  Not the continual rehashing of "I hate them because".


----------



## boyblue (Feb 8, 2006)

*Overpointed generic weeks are good for weeks members.*

Caro,
An overpointed week on the generic grid actually helps weeks members because when points members ignore a week (it's not worth the points), weeks members get to pick up the week using your beloved weeks mojo.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 8, 2006)

The overpointed weeks are the pink weeks, with less demand.  The UNDERpointed weeks are the prime weeks.  Thats the way overaveraging works, undervaluing the least demanded inventory and overvaluing the most desired.

So you are saying that Weeks members should be happy that we have more
pink weeks availible while the Posts people plunder the prime weeks for a song?  Nonsense!





			
				boyblue said:
			
		

> Caro,
> An overpointed week on the generic grid actually helps weeks members because when points members ignore a week (it's not worth the points), weeks members get to pick up the week using your beloved weeks mojo.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 8, 2006)

I tend to look at the big picture, not use tunnelvision on just my own situation.  What RCI is up to will ultimately have far reaching impact.  Just using a different exchange company on an individual basis accomplishes nothing.   It is spitting in the ocean.  Many of our resorts are in danger of owner bailouts, which are already starting to happen, from RCI's policies which leads to higher m/f's for owners and in the worst case, the resort going belly up.  Individually using a different exchange company doesn't solve that problem.

That's why I have suggested that one of the best responses is to be proactive.  Make certain that your home resorts know what is going on.  Encourage them to publicize the indepedent exchange companies to help build real competition in the industry.  There is no effective competition for exchange business in a resort that is affiliated with only one of the  big companies and members are not told about their ability to use independents.

I know that some of the Points people like the ability of their system to rip off the Weeks system, and think we Weeks people should just sit back and take the fraud that is being perpetrated on our system by the way the interface between the two systems has been designed.  I certainly do not intend to be silent.

Also, this situation does not deal with ''a system'' but on the contrary with two owned by a single entity, and I don't like my system being ''exploited'' unfairly by the other system.  RCI is systematically cheating its Weeks members, and that word needs to get out to Weeks members.




			
				huestous said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> Why spend so much time and effort barking at the moon?
> 
> The utility of a users group is the sharing of strategies to exploit the flaws in a given system.  Not the continual rehashing of "I hate them because".


----------



## boyblue (Feb 8, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> The overpointed weeks are the pink weeks, with less demand.  The UNDERpointed weeks are the prime weeks.  Thats the way overaveraging works, undervaluing the least demanded inventory and overvaluing the most desired.
> 
> So you are saying that Weeks members should be happy that we have more
> pink weeks availible while the Posts people plunder the prime weeks for a song?  Nonsense!



Before we move on to underpointing let me get this straight, You don't have a problem with overpointing?  Your beef is with underpointing the good stuff?


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 8, 2006)

No, I am saying that the crossover grids are a fraud on Weeks and crossovers should be halted at least until an honest system is devised.

If you are a Points member, you are a Points member whether or not you have a seperate Weeks account.  You are using aspects of Points to do the crossovers or PFD.  THose are NOT aspects of Weeks.  When you do that you are clearly wearing your Points hat.

The overaveraging that is the mechanism of this fraud allows a Points person to trade up even more than either system would by itself.  By treating all weeks in the same region of the same award status, season, and size the same, it gives equal value to all.  The t/s salesman's spiel about all red weeks being the same magically becomes true.

For example, a Points members can deposit a pale pink week 15 on the OBX from a Weeks resort in PFD and then use the same unfair generic points grid to take out a July 4th week 27 from the same resort of same size.  Outside of an extremely rare situation in the Weeks 45 day window, no member of either Weeks or Points would come close to doing that in their own system.

And its not just seasons where this overaveraging allows this to happen.  One could use PFD to deposit a very low demand area, like Carriage Manor at Lake Royale (on a smallish manmake lake with a history of water quality problems in the red clay fields of Franklin County in the center of North Carolina) and take out a high demand area, like Isle of Palms Resort and Beach Club or another Charleston area resort.  

They could even do both, deposit a pink week at a low demand location and using the same overaveraged grids, take out a prime week at a high demand location.

The generic grids were a major fraud on the Weeks system when they just applied to taking out Weeks inventory by Points members.  PFD severely compounds this problem.  They need major reform and should be completely junked until that reform happens.

RCI had a chance to fix this problem when they recalculated those girds in the last year, but just rejiggered some of the numbers without addressing the more fundamental problem of overaveraging.  Curiously, for the European girds, they have increased the number of categories a year or two ago instead of lumping all red weeks together.  While they probably need even more categories in Europe to approach fairness, this is the direction they could have moved in the US but refused to.  I made that proactive suggestion while the grids were still under review.




			
				Dani said:
			
		

> Using that logic, does that mean that since I am a Weeks member who also happens to be a Points member that it is okay for me to raid Weeks with my Points?  You are speaking in semantics.   The result is the same.   People are being allowed to use weeks that are currently in the Weeks systems to raid points.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 8, 2006)

boyblue said:
			
		

> Before we move on to underpointing let me get this straight, You don't have a problem with overpointing?  Your beef is with underpointing the good stuff?



What I have a problem with is the unfair generic points grids that incorrectly value weeks through overaveraging.

The fix I have suggested for some time is to increase the number of categories seasonally and geographically, like they do now with the grids for Europe.  It would help to add even more categories than the number on the European grids.  This would fix both the overpointing and underpointing problem that results from overaveraging.  Of course, there would still be the question of whether the numbers were in the same range of Points resorts, but they do seem to be doing better on that part of the equation.

If they can do this for the European grids, there is no good reason they could not have done it for the grids in this hemisphere.  What is RCI's agenda in failing to do so?

My answer to you was showing the fallacy of the argument that Weeks members should be happy with the grids because the lesser weeks were overvalued.  I did not discuss the whole issue in the response, only that info necessary to refute your point.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 8, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> What I have a problem with is the unfair generic points grids that incorrectly value weeks through overaveraging.
> 
> The fix I have suggested for some time is to increase the number of categories seasonally and geographically, like they do now with the grids for Europe.  It would help to add even more categories than the number on the European grids.  This would fix both the overpointing and underpointing problem that results from overaveraging.  Of course, there would still be the question of whether the numbers were in the same range of Points resorts, but they do seem to be doing better on that part of the equation.
> 
> ...



I must acknowledge that Carolinian has provided recommended fixes to points.  That's good.  Every system needs it.  

I will provide a counterpoint to his argument, though.  That is that all pricing is a challenge.  It is a trade off between simplicity and optimizing profit.  Simplicity is appealing to buyers because it's easier for them to understand it.  Profit optimization is all about setting a price at EXACTLY the crossover point between supply and demand.  That is what a stock market does.  But, as we all know, a stock market has wild gyrations in pricing.

There is no perfect pricing model.  The goal of every business person is to get pricing as close to right as possible and accept the loopholes that it creates.  That's the way it works EVERYWHERE from your corner grocery store to your friendly neighborhood hardware store to Walmart.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Feb 8, 2006)

*At Least The Hat Fits.*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> When you do that you are clearly wearing your Points hat.


Fortunately my Points hat fits nicely on my pointed head. 

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


----------



## boyblue (Feb 8, 2006)

Carolinian,
I agree there should be adjustments and with RCI points and other points systems those errors are in the open for all to see.  All we're trying to say is that weeks trading does not allow this.

If we could look at the RCI weeks tables you would probably see that the same erroneous assumptions are being made.  After all it's the same guys making the assumptions.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 8, 2006)

boyblue said:
			
		

> Carolinian,
> I agree there should be adjustments and with RCI points and other points systems those errors are in the open for all to see.  All we're trying to say is that weeks trading does not allow this.
> 
> If we could look at the RCI weeks tables you would probably see that the same erroneous assumptions are being made.  After all it's the same guys making the assumptions.



That is soooooo true.  Where do you think the RCI Point guys get the numbers they use to assign the point values?  They certainly don't get them from Interval International.  LOL.


----------



## boyblue (Feb 8, 2006)

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> That is soooooo true.  Where do you think the RCI Point guys get the numbers they use to assign the point values?  They certainly don't get them from Interval International.  LOL.



....After a harty laugh.

It at least gives us a indication of the way RCI as an organization thinks.

As a matter of fact Carolinian I have no doubt that you could put together a better grid (as a matter of fact I'm sure of it) but all I am saying to you (only because you have said you refuse to use it) is, it really ain't bad to the point where it is not usable.


----------

