# Is trading power of US SA owners less than of SA SA owners?



## Carolinian (Aug 15, 2011)

South Africans who own timeshares in their own country have long exchanged through a system different than that of US or European owners of SA timeshare.  SA residents have used a numbers based system that is different than either RCI Points or the new ''Points Lite'' version of Weeks.  Given the severe whacking of values in Points Lite, and the fact that those values are now quite different from RCI Points values for PFD of SA weeks, I have wondered how different the relative values of this SA system are.

Recently, on a trip to the UK, I had a discussion that caused me to wonder about that even more.  I had stopped by a timeshare I was thinking of putting in a request on with an independent exchange company or two in order to check it out a bit and see if I did want to do that.  While there, I thought I recognized an accent and struck up a conversation with a couple who had traded in through RCI and were South Africans who owned in South Africa.  I mentioned my own ownership of SA timeshare and that RCI members in the US and Europe had seen a major devaluation of our weeks within the last year.  They said they had not noticed any changes in their trade values.  They only owned one timeshare week and sometimes traded domestically and sometimes abroad.  They mentioned what they owned in SA and I inquired about the unit type they had traded into.  I also asked if it had taken the value of more than one of their weeks to make that trade and they said it did not, and what time period they had made the exchange and it was far enough out that it would not have been in the 45 day window but was after Points Lite was imposed on European and US members.  Afterward, I looked up the numbers for how many points lite their week would have received in our system and how many points lite it would take for us to trade into the week they had traded for.  On the latter, I had to use the points calculator for value of a deposit since this resort was one that summer weeks are virtually never seen in online inventory and even off season weeks are not that common.  Of course, for such resorts, RCI typically charges at least as much as they give for a deposit and often more.  The result was that for an American or European to make the same trade with a SA week would have taken over TWO weeks of points lite.

This is just one data point, but it suggests that RCI is giving lower relative valuations for non-SA owners of SA weeks than they are for SA owners of the same weeks.

It would be very interesting if anyone has access to the numbers for the SA RCI exchange system to compare relative values against Points Lite values. That might provide even more indication as to whether US and European owners of SA timeshare are being deliberately shortchanged by RCI on valuations for exchange.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 15, 2011)

Trading power for our Australia resort has to be higher than the numbers suggest.  I would bet Australia owners receive higher trading power.  They have to! 

I checked the TPU's of ours, and they were terribly low for all seasons.  We actually have these in RCI Points, which is how we gained entry to RCI Points.  It's not like I need to use them as weeks, but if RCI closed down its points system, I would be unhappy with the trading power.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 15, 2011)

Cindy, I think SA is the only market that has always had its own trading system.  Points Lite allocation for European timeshares are the same whether you live in Europe or the US.  It may be that the computer recognizes an Australian member and gives them a different allocation for deposits of an Australian week, of course, but that does not happen for Europe so I am guessing it does not happen for Australia either.

The twist for European owners has been that RCI holds back some of the better European weeks which are only made availible to European members, so that North American members will not take them all.  From some comparisions done after Points Lite came in, that perk still seems to be in place.  It used to be that if a European member deposited a European week, he was given double credits if he was going to trade into North America, but that is no longer being done and in fact in stopped a long time before Points Lite arrived.


----------



## MuranoJo (Aug 15, 2011)

Could it be devaluation which we brought on ourselves?

Purchasing great traders for small change and paying low m/f (levies), and then bragging it up probably irked a lot of other t/s owners.  (I heard some complained to RCI.)


----------



## Dori (Aug 16, 2011)

Our SA MF's are not so low anymore, at least not lke the good old days. When Points Lite came in,our 2011 Lowveld was pegged at 13. All of a sudden, I woke up one morning to find it shot up to 26!. My 20012 week is back to 13.  

Dori


----------



## MuranoJo (Aug 16, 2011)

Dori,
Absolutely right the m/f are not at all like they used to be.  A lot has to do with currency fluctuations in the wrong direction, but in some cases, such as with First Resorts, I think they're piling on additional, unjustified fees just to force people out.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 20, 2011)

I wonder if there are any tables online where we could look up the SA RCI exchange system numbers, and look at what our weeks would trade for in the SA exchange system, and then compare with what they offer us as European or American owners of SA resorts?

The valuations between RCI Points and RCI Points Lite (''Weeks'') are clearly different and it seems these are likely to be as well.


----------



## MuranoJo (Aug 20, 2011)

I've never seen anything online which shows TPU in the SA RCI exchange system, but haven't really looked, either.  Wouldn't they have an exchange calculator like we have?


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 21, 2011)

The points-type exchange scheme used by RCI SA predates Points Lite by years and is I recall correctly, also predates RCI Points.  Their system does not use the term TPU.  I doubt they have anything like the calculator, and from the references I have seen and heard, my impression is that it is more like the points tables of RCI Points.  It seems that at one time one of the resellers had a link to those tables but I can't find one now.




muranojo said:


> I've never seen anything online which shows TPU in the SA RCI exchange system, but haven't really looked, either.  Wouldn't they have an exchange calculator like we have?


----------



## Margariet (Aug 21, 2011)

I don't think RCI differs the amount of TPU's by nationality. I don't see why they would care if someone from country X has more TPU's for his/her week than someone from country Y. But I do know that several companies in non-Western countries differ themselves in the amount of weeks or points or in the resorts they let their members own. Some resorts are in their opinion 'not good enough' for Westerners and they are willing to give Western members more points or higher valued weeks but in return Western members pay more MF's. Several companies have different levels of membership: from basic to platinum and the highest valued weeks and units are still often owned by foreigners. When these members deposit in the RCI bank, their company will deposit for them the weeks with the highest amounts of TPU's. With some countries getting more developed and their domestic members getting richer and some Western members getting less richer this will be an interesting matter for the near future.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 21, 2011)

I don't think you are following the situation here.

The internal exchange system in SA has never been the same as in other places, largely because RCI SA was set up as a franchise.  They don't use TPU's or points lite or whatever you want to call them.  They have had their own points-based system since long before Points Lite existed, and if memory serves, even before RCI Points existed.

The way RCI everywhere else has connected with RCI SA has always been a bit arbitrary because the way the SA exchange system worked was on a different system than anywhere else in RCI.  When Americans first started buying SA weeks, it was skewed in a way that overvalued the deposits if you deposited an SA week in RCI outside SA.  Then that was adjusted to better fit reality but still contained a lot of overaveraging where better SA resorts were undervalued relative to lesser SA resorts, and the same was true between lesser time periods and more desirable times.  Then came what many called Black Sunday, which better differentiated the better times and resorts from the lesser times and resorts.  Some lost and some gained, but it probably was a fairer and more accurate system.  Then came Points Lite in which SA was devalued across the board in a major way.  All the while the members within SA rocked along with their own seperate system of exchange values, which have been points based and which at one time were viewable on the site of one of the resellers.

The issue now is how that internal SA exchange system matches up to the new Points Lite numbers.  I strongly suspect the devaluation that came with Points Lite was not imposed on RCI members living in SA, and would like to compare the numbers to confirm that.

i wish I had printed out the info on that link to the SA number system, but it did not seem to matter at the time.




Margariet said:


> I don't think RCI differs the amount of TPU's by nationality. I don't see why they would care if someone from country X has more TPU's for his/her week than someone from country Y. But I do know that several companies in non-Western countries differ themselves in the amount of weeks or points or in the resorts they let their members own. Some resorts are in their opinion 'not good enough' for Westerners and they are willing to give Western members more points or higher valued weeks but in return Western members pay more MF's. Several companies have different levels of membership: from basic to platinum and the highest valued weeks and units are still often owned by foreigners. When these members deposit in the RCI bank, their company will deposit for them the weeks with the highest amounts of TPU's. With some countries getting more developed and their domestic members getting richer and some Western members getting less richer this will be an interesting matter for the near future.


----------



## Margariet (Aug 21, 2011)

Carolinian said:


> I don't think you are following the situation here.
> 
> The internal exchange system in SA has never been the same as in other places, largely because RCI SA was set up as a franchise.  They don't use TPU's or points lite or whatever you want to call them.  They have had their own points-based system since long before Points Lite existed, and if memory serves, even before RCI Points existed.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I will be out of this thread cause I don't understand any word you are saying about this issue. Sorry, but I'm not American. We were always warned about SA TS and I'm glad we never bought and were never pushed to do so cause I understand it has low value. And being in SA myself in several TS resorts I have to say that many TS resorts lack in quality and even years ago you could buy them like hot cakes for nothing so I'm not surprised that they are low valued by RCI. I've always learned that you have to be suspicious when something is too cheap, or too good to be true. But sorry again for you all.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 21, 2011)

Margariet said:


> Sorry, I will be out of this thread cause I don't understand any word you are saying about this issue. Sorry, but I'm not American. We were always warned about SA TS and I'm glad we never bought and were never pushed to do so cause I understand it has low value. And being in SA myself in several TS resorts I have to say that many TS resorts lack in quality and even years ago you could buy them like hot cakes for nothing so I'm not surprised that they are low valued by RCI. I've always learned that you have to be suspicious when something is too cheap, or too good to be true. But sorry again for you all.



Prices and m/f's / Levies in SA were good value because the rand was substantially undervalued, just like a similar pattern in the past in Australia. The Economist magazine some years ago listed the Oz dollar as the most undervalued in First World currencies and the SA rand as the most undervalued in the world.  Value for exchange is not based on the market price to buy a week or the amount of the m/f.  It is based on the supply of weeks in the exchange system and the demand for those weeks.  Like the US or Europe, there are different levels of quality among resorts in SA.  Similarly, there are areas with higher demand than others.


----------



## MuranoJo (Aug 21, 2011)

Carolinian said:


> Prices and m/f's / Levies in SA were good value because the rand was substantially undervalued, just like a similar pattern in the past in Australia. The Economist magazine some years ago listed the Oz dollar as the most undervalued in First World currencies and the SA rand as the most undervalued in the world.  *Value for exchange is not based on the market price to buy a week or the amount of the m/f. * It is based on the supply of weeks in the exchange system and the demand for those weeks.  Like the US or Europe, there are different levels of quality among resorts in SA.  Similarly, there are areas with higher demand than others.



But, per a message I posted earlier in this thread, some TUGgers apparently complained to RCI at one time about how the 'cheap' SA deposits were snatching up deposits which were perceived to have much higher value and also higher m/f than SA.  I believe some SA owners felt the lowered t/p from RCI was a direct result of this, as well as a result of the growing publicity about 'cheap' SA ownership.  (I remember a couple of TUGgers being interviewed about their great, cheap SA ownership and what it got them in exchanges.  About that time, SA peaked out and then headed down after RCI's response.)


----------



## EWSteyn (Aug 22, 2011)

Carolinian said:


> The issue now is how that internal SA exchange system matches up to the new Points Lite numbers.  I strongly suspect the devaluation that came with Points Lite was not imposed on RCI members living in SA, and would like to compare the numbers to confirm that.
> 
> i wish I had printed out the info on that link to the SA number system, but it did not seem to matter at the time.



Carolinian, thank you so much for all your research!!! 

I dont know if this will help, but I have a print-out of the points allocated to the units at Dikhololo (1999) on 6 November 2009 from rci.co.za. If I compare it to the points currently allocated to the units at Dikhololo (1999) on rci.co.za, it is the same. For example, a Studio Peak4 full week gets 6270 RCI Trading Points now and then.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 26, 2011)

EWSteyn said:


> Carolinian, thank you so much for all your research!!!
> 
> I dont know if this will help, but I have a print-out of the points allocated to the units at Dikhololo (1999) on 6 November 2009 from rci.co.za. If I compare it to the points currently allocated to the units at Dikhololo (1999) on rci.co.za, it is the same. For example, a Studio Peak4 full week gets 6270 RCI Trading Points now and then.



For comparision, the points scale for North America and Europe RCI on a DIK peak 1BR (same as what DAE and apparently also RCI SA calls a studio) is a two digit number and ranges from 14 to 25 depending on the exact week.  For RCI Points outside SA, the number is a five digit number, in this case 29,000 RCI Points and only applies for Points for Deposits (or PDF).  So clearly, trades by SA members of RCI are still conducted on a different scale than trades for RCI members who reside elsewhere but own in SA.

Also, it appears that valuations for owners of SA weeks who live in SA have not changed with RCI like they did for RCI members owning in SA who live outside the country and use RCI ''Weeks''.

Of course, to really evaluate trading power, one must know the other side of the equation.  Have the numbers also remained the same for trades by SA members into places outside SA like Europe, North America, and the Caribbean?  How many of the SA RCI Trading Points would it take to trade into Allen House in London for example or Smugglers Notch in Vermont or The Galleon in Key West, Florida or St. Georges Club in Bermuda?  Has that changed?  Is there a link that could be posted showing how many Trading Points that RCI members in SA have to give for various exchanges?

This leads to another question - Would it be feasible to get a SA address and join RCI in SA to take advantage of a fairer trading system there?


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 11, 2011)

Well, we now know that RCI did not change the trading power assigned to deposits made by SA members of RCI.  We know that RCI did not change the trading power of deposits made by RCI Points members into PFD.  RCI only changed the trading power assigned to RCI ''Weeke'' members living outside SA who deposited their weeks into that system.

That does not suggest a change in the real trading value of an SA week. It suggests an extremely arbitrary and unjustified policy targeted at members it thinks have no other option - RCI ''Weeks'' members living outside SA but owning SA weeks.

From some posts here, such members *do* have other options, like handing back the weeks to the resorts.  What are the consequences of that? Rising levies for remaining members is one, leading to more bailouts.  Weakening resort defenses against predators like Bullfrog Lamont who want to crash the resorts is another. When Lamont crashes a resort, RCI loses dues paying members, and exchange fees from those members.  In short, everybody loses.

Some of RCI's policies in the last few years seem directed by the new breed of corporate functionaries.  They look for something that they think will goose short term gains, getting them big bonuses, and then hope to be gone before that policy blows up.  An RCI insider posted some months ago that the guy who came up with the rental to the public policies, for example, was already gone.  Grab the bonus and run.  They reject the sound forward looking policies to make sure the system was stable for the long haul that characterized RCI in the pre-Cendant era.

Someone suggested complaints about the ''cheap levies'' and ''cheap purchase price'' by envious people had led to RCI's actions.  Well, perhaps it played a role, but any informed person should have comprehended that buying SA timeshare was just a smart currency play at a time the SA rand was in the toilet.  Some, primarily on the Points side, did the same thing with Australia when the Oz dollar was similarly in the toilet.  But it did not help when a nonthinking Tugger bragged in the NY Times, Manhattan Club's hometown paper, about trading his ''little grass hut'' in SA for a week at MC.  Anyone with a brain should have comprehended that this would send MC ballistic and it did.

Now when RCI takes this action, the SA rand is no longer in the toilet.  Indeed, today, if one looks for a cheap trading week with high trading power and relatively low m/f, they would probably look at the Vacation Village at Parkway weeks that can be easily picked up for $1 on eBay.  They are cheaper than SA ever was and carry more trading power than SA did immediately before the imposition of Points Lite.  But Vacation Village at Parkway is the resort RCI employee Bootleg identified as the resort with the biggest oversupply in the entire RCI system, and looking at availibility online these days, it clearly still has that massive glut of inventory.  Indeed, several times I have looked VV@P by itself had roughly the same number of availibilities as all ~190 RCI resorts in SA combined.

As long as RCI continues this arbitrary and illogical policy on valuations, they will not be a reliable exchange company.  Until something changes in the corporate culture of RCI, however, it is likely to continue.


----------



## Margariet (Sep 11, 2011)

I told you I am out of this thread but when I look at the region SA on this board there is hardly anyone who's going there or is interested in going there. IMHO SA is not that popular nowadays for many non-SA visitors. The curious people who always wanted to go there have been there yet. The low demand means something for the value. Besides the country is filled with TS

I don't know anything about diffences between trading powers between several countries but maybe it's all for a reason. It's still very normal to have different prices in many countries for locals and tourists. When we visit countries in SE Asia we still can find regular products four times cheaper than in our country because the big companies like Unilever and Nestle adjust their prices to the local income and lifestyle. I still remembrer that there were 3 price levels in touristic places in SE Asia: one for Americans (the highest), one for Europeans (a bit lower) and one for Russians (the lowest). That has clearly changed!

So I understand you are not satisfied because your TS is less in value than for SA members? I think that's the way of world. Yes, if you want to have better value open a SA account. It's not for nothing that some people do have accounts in Andorra or in Liechtenstein!


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 11, 2011)

As far as demand, the last I saw, tourism numbers for SA are still quite strong.  The demand for SA has always been more from Europe.  When I was there some years ago, I saw lots of European tourists but did not see another American for the three weeks I was there.  So the mainly American participants in this board are a very very poor test.

Low demand?  When ALL resorts of SA comvined have about the same availibility as just one overbuilt and overpointed resort in overbuilt Orlando that speaks volumes about availiibility and not in the direction you suggest.  Your assertion is also refuted by the most recent supply / demand ''availibility'' charts that RCI publishes in the European version of its directory (although RCI is no longer sending printed directories to at least my part of Europe, so the last one out there is a couple of years old).  Compare SA with Orlando or the Canaries to many countries of Europe, for example.

RCI hides their mechanism for setting valuations, and they do so for a reason, because many of their valuations simply do not make good sense based on supply and demand.

My biggest concern with RCI's screwy valuation numbers is with my summer southern England school holiday weeks.  My resort rarely comes up online at RCI any time of year and never in summer so the supply / demand curve is clearly very strong, and it is a high quality resort, but the numbers in Points Lite are absurdly low.  Actually the RCI Points numbers are quite reasonable.  RCI's game playing there is a much bigger concern for me than their game playing with non-SA residents who own in SA.



Margariet said:


> I told you I am out of this thread but when I look at the region SA on this board there is hardly anyone who's going there or is interested in going there. IMHO SA is not that popular nowadays for many non-SA visitors. The curious people who always wanted to go there have been there yet. The low demand means something for the value. Besides the country is filled with TS
> 
> I don't know anything about diffences between trading powers between several countries but maybe it's all for a reason. It's still very normal to have different prices in many countries for locals and tourists. When we visit countries in SE Asia we still can find regular products four times cheaper than in our country because the big companies like Unilever and Nestle adjust their prices to the local income and lifestyle. I still remembrer that there were 3 price levels in touristic places in SE Asia: one for Americans (the highest), one for Europeans (a bit lower) and one for Russians (the lowest). That has clearly changed!
> 
> So I understand you are not satisfied because your TS is less in value than for SA members? I think that's the way of world. Yes, if you want to have better value open a SA account. It's not for nothing that some people do have accounts in Andorra or in Liechtenstein!


----------



## dundey (Sep 11, 2011)

SA has a lot of timeshares, yes but it is a huge country.  That's like saying the US has a lot of timeshares, its irrelevant.

I don't think too many tuggers purchased SA for use.  As previously stated they were purchased due to extremely low currency rates of the the Rand compared to US dollar, which made the levies extremely low.  They traded well, given the fact that SA was and still is a prime holiday destination for much of the world, and European travelers in particular.

The recent changes by RCI to decrease TPU's of SA resorts are not justified.  

There was a time when I owned 4 SA resorts.  They served their purpose.  When the Rand started increasing in value I sold 2 at a profit to SA buyers.  I recently sold another since I have increased my t/s holdings at US resorts that we will use every year to decrease our reliance on ANY trading company, but particularly RCI.  So I'll keep the other and see what happens as we go forward.  Levies are still reasonable at about $350.


----------

