# RCI Weeks to offer value transparency



## timeos2

I have recently heard from two different RCI sources that, as part of the fallout from the ill-fated class action suit, the RCI Weeks system is going to undergo a major and unprecedented change.  The long secret trade value is coming out from the shadows and will be used front and center as the new means for facilitating trades.  

What that means is no more secret values. Instead each and every week will get a known value when you deposit - and what you want to get will also have a known value. This is a major breakthrough. It will finally give members a way to know what they have and what it will cost to get what they want. It is NOT another points systems (trades will remain as 7 days). It will have other features. 

- Consolidating.  The resort you deposit is worth 40 on the trade scale. The one you want (one of the best, highest demand in the system as we all seem to desire) demands 55. Yo can take  a combined value of another week to reach the 55.  

- Change back. You are the lucky owner who deposits a high value time worth 50 on the scale. You can travel in off season or can use a smaller unit at only 20. You get the "change back" (30 credits) for future trades. 

Those are just a couple key basics. What a positive and long overdue change.  With the values revealed and the ability to use multiple weeks and/or get change back the whole game changes. For the better. 

Of course there will be losers as well. Those who knew how to game the system for free upgrades will now pay the going rate. Those who thought they had gold in some low value or over inventoried area will get less credits. Those who felt quality wasn't in the equation will learn it has a place. Overall I see this as a big step in the right direction for the broken weeks based exchange system that every exchange, not just RCI, should be looking at adopting. 

The announcement should occur in 4-8 weeks. That should be enough to get the conversation rolling for now.


----------



## svwoude

John, Is the April Fools several days early?

RCI and transparency in the same sentence? :rofl:   Who'da thunk

Steve


----------



## Carolinian

The only way that could be a fair system is if 1) the method of setting values is fully transparent to prevent the developer politicking of RCI for values not justified by the market, and 2) the values remain dynamic rather than rigged and frozen like RCI Points.  If the numbers are published but the method of setting them is hidden, then it will be open season for developers getting RCI to cook the books.  Deal appropriately with those two issues, and I would not have that much problem with it.  Of course, I will still probably use DAE and SFX instead.


----------



## jacknsara

John,
Any word on changes to the system at the 45 and 14 day thresholds? Of course, I can wait to find out but that has been the primary focus of my trading activity using my Mexican studio.  
Thanks for the heads up
Jack


----------



## krj9999

If this happens as indicated, does this mean trading up from a 1BR to a 2BR will be more challenging?  Will there be different point values for different sized units?



timeos2 said:


> I have recently heard from two different RCI sources that, as part of the fallout from the ill-fated class action suit, the RCI Weeks system is going to undergo a major and unprecedented change.  The long secret trade value is coming out from the shadows and will be used front and center as the new means for facilitating trades.
> 
> What that means is no more secret values. Instead each and every week will get a known value when you deposit - and what you want to get will also have a known value. This is a major breakthrough. It will finally give members a way to know what they have and what it will cost to get what they want. It is NOT another points systems (trades will remain as 7 days). It will have other features.
> 
> - Consolidating.  The resort you deposit is worth 40 on the trade scale. The one you want (one of the best, highest demand in the system as we all seem to desire) demands 55. Yo can take  a combined value of another week to reach the 55.
> 
> - Change back. You are the lucky owner who deposits a high value time worth 50 on the scale. You can travel in off season or can use a smaller unit at only 20. You get the "change back" (30 credits) for future trades.
> 
> Those are just a couple key basics. What a positive and long overdue change.  With the values revealed and the ability to use multiple weeks and/or get change back the whole game changes. For the better.
> 
> Of course there will be losers as well. Those who knew how to game the system for free upgrades will now pay the going rate. Those who thought they had gold in some low value or over inventoried area will get less credits. Those who felt quality wasn't in the equation will learn it has a place. Overall I see this as a big step in the right direction for the broken weeks based exchange system that every exchange, not just RCI, should be looking at adopting.
> 
> The announcement should occur in 4-8 weeks. That should be enough to get the conversation rolling for now.


----------



## DeniseM

Sounds like Redweek!


----------



## timeos2

krj9999 said:


> If this happens as indicated, does this mean trading up from a 1BR to a 2BR will be more challenging?  Will there be different point values for different sized units?



Yes, but I'd rename them " trade credits" rather than points to prevent confusion with the two distinct systems. 

A 1 bedroom won't carry as many credits as a two bedroom of the same use date, resort, etc.  And a ranked resort will have more credits than an unranked. Each area of supply, demand, quality, size, date  - they will all contribute to the credits assigned. Just as they always have but in the dark vs known to the member.


----------



## timeos2

jacknsara said:


> John,
> Any word on changes to the system at the 45 and 14 day thresholds? Of course, I can wait to find out but that has been the primary focus of my trading activity using my Mexican studio.
> Thanks for the heads up
> Jack



Yes, there are changes to the time period when discounts will take effect and how much.  They also sound positive.  Overall it is a more open system and puts more control/knowledge in the hands of the paying members.


----------



## Carolinian

timeos2 said:


> Yes, but I'd rename them " trade credits" rather than points to prevent confusion with the two distinct systems.
> 
> A 1 bedroom won't carry as many credits as a two bedroom of the same use date, resort, etc.  And a ranked resort will have more credits than an unranked. Each area of supply, demand, quality, size, date  - they will all contribute to the credits assigned. Just as they always have but in the dark vs known to the member.



If they are using a resort being ''ranked'' I suppose that means award status, and if that is the case I already know this new system will be crap, since award status is a very different thing than demand.  It has some impact on demand but is far ourweighed by location.  In a beach area, the rankings should be on the beach, then walking distance to the beach, and finally drive to beach resorts.  Those factors have a whole lot more to do with demand than award status.  On the OBX, for many years one of the two GC resorts, BIS-Kitty Hawk was by far the lowest demand resort in the area due to poor location relative to the beach (of course, now it has lost its GC status, too). Similarly, in London, Allen House in central London, which has a lower ranking has a far superior location and much higher demand than GC Odessa Wharf way out in the docklands.  They need to look solely at historic supply and demand per resort.  Whatever impact award status has is already factored into that.  When they use award status as a seperate factor in trading power, it completely distorts the curve.  I know that if any beachfront resort on the OBX ends up equal to or lower than BIS-Kitty Hawk, then owners will rightly scream.


----------



## Carolinian

timeos2 said:


> Yes, there are changes to the time period when discounts will take effect and how much.  They also sound positive.  Overall it is a more open system and puts more control/knowledge in the hands of the paying members.



Unless there is TOTAL TRANSPARENCY of the mechanism of setting values, the system is far, far worse than what exists now.

We know how easy it is to trade into the overbuilt areas now, due to the vast oversupply there.  If these values inflate their trading power, then it will be revealed as a total fraud by RCI.  Points has done that and I suspect given who is so happy about this one, this new system will also overvalue the overbuilt areas.


----------



## logan115

Well, for a novice like myself I think this is really going to aid my decision on which (if any) TS to purchase to go along with my DVC points, so I consider myself to be in the group that this will benefit - despite the fact that it probably means I'll be paying up for whatever I end up buying (assuming the seller realizes the increased value of their TS).  I can't imagine that RCI is going to "nail it" in terms of properly assessing values, so there should still be some great opportunities to maximize exchange value.

Chris


----------



## Timmuscat

John, how will this new RCI weeks system impact Wyndham owners who depositgeneric weeks?  How will these generic weeks be valued?  Will we still have any priority when attempting to exchange back into Wyndham resorts?

This will be an interesting change.  The prevailing view has been that you should not deposit more than a generic red studio (70,000) or a generic red one bedroom (105,000), because a larger generic Wyndham point deposit does not really increase your trading strength in RCI weeks.  Will this change?  Will a 154,000 deposit now bring significantly more trading power in RCI weeks?  What happens to my existing 28,000 point deposit?  

Thanks in advance.  TUG rules!


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

Carolinian said:


> Unless there is TOTAL TRANSPARENCY of the mechanism of setting values, the system is far, far worse than what exists now.
> 
> We know how easy it is to trade into the overbuilt areas now, due to the vast oversupply there.  If these values inflate their trading power, then it will be revealed as a total fraud by RCI.  Points has done that and I suspect given who is so happy about this one, this new system will also overvalue the overbuilt areas.


Why is transparency needed?

When people go to a store they don't demand transparency as to how the store sets prices.  All a consumer needs to know is how much money they have in their wallet (i.e., how much their week is worth) and how much the goods in the store will cost (i.e., the price needed to get the weeks that are inventory.

From that information you can make the decision as to whether or not you want to shop at that store, or take your business somewhere else.  If a store persists in overpricing inventory, the stuff sits on the shelf until it loses value.  

********

You've long advocated the value of using independent exchange companies because they offer better value.  I would think you would be thrilled to see RCI do this, because the better value offered by independents will be totally evident.  And if RCI does goose trade power to inflate the value of certain weeks and undervalue other desirable weeks, the discrepancies will be even more apparent.

I would think that independent companies would be glad to see this happen.

****

This also seems to me to add value to blue weeks.  Because if the system allows week values to be combined, blue weeks will still have all of the trade value they currently have, but they will have the added value of being used to upgrade the value of another week.


----------



## bilfbr245

I will likely be one of the losers.  I have always relied on the higher value of the unit I receive in trade to offset the cost of the very high trade fee.  If the unit I receive in trade is only of equal value, I will be out $179.


----------



## urple2

> how will this new RCI weeks system impact Wyndham owners who depositgeneric weeks?



This may well line up with the insider Wyndham rumors I've heard about all generic Wyndham deposits will become visible by June. As to whether there will still be a Wyndham to Wyndham preference will also remain to be seen.


----------



## Judy

timeos2 said:


> What that means is no more secret values. Instead each and every week will get a known value when you deposit -


By "when you deposit", do you mean before you deposit, or after you deposit?  We can already see the value of our weeks after we deposit.  It's whatever they can pull.  By then, of course, it's too late.  In today's system you pay first and then find out what you've bought    I wonder what will become of deposits already made, but not yet used for an exchange


----------



## stevedmatt

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Why is transparency needed?
> 
> When people go to a store they don't demand transparency as to how the store sets prices.



In theory, this isn't a store. It is a company that offers a service to all members who individually should be considered equals. Why should there not be transparency among a group of equals?

I am paying a company to be a member of a group. I am not going to a store to buy a product.


----------



## rickandcindy23

I am very concerned at the future of exchanging.  I hope others see that this is possibly the worst thing RCI could do to exchangers.  THEY value YOUR ownership week, and this is supposed to be transparent?  Whatever.  I can do some of it on my own.  I compare my red and blue weeks all the time, and it sure shows me what they value and what they don't value.  

I have a blue week that I used to get an off-season Orlando week (used to have two blue weeks but gave away one of them), and I can rent an identical week directly from RCI much cheaper than my MF ($480) + exchange fee.  I am anxious to be done with that week, I can tell you that.  

I have already been discouraged to see great units for 7,500 pts in RCI's Last Call that I cannot even pull with this week.  They have taken inventory out of RCI weeks, and they have given it only to RCI Points members for 7,500 pts, and not many TUG members seem to care.  I brought this up months ago, June of 2009, as soon as they devalued my summer weeks, I noticed the changes.


----------



## timeos2

Timmuscat said:


> John, how will this new RCI weeks system impact Wyndham owners who depositgeneric weeks?  How will these generic weeks be valued?  Will we still have any priority when attempting to exchange back into Wyndham resorts?
> 
> This will be an interesting change.  The prevailing view has been that you should not deposit more than a generic red studio (70,000) or a generic red one bedroom (105,000), because a larger generic Wyndham point deposit does not really increase your trading strength in RCI weeks.  Will this change?  Will a 154,000 deposit now bring significantly more trading power in RCI weeks?  What happens to my existing 28,000 point deposit?
> 
> Thanks in advance.  TUG rules!



That is one area I have heard nothing about (impact on Wyndham deposits) but I have to assume they will be assigned a value as any other deposit would. Again it should create a clear choice for value vs cost for each potential deposit thus making the level of points used for what level of value much clearer.  Specifically regarding Wyndham there hasn't been anything stated.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

stevedmatt said:


> In theory, this isn't a store. It is a company that offers a service to all members who individually should be considered equals. Why should there not be transparency among a group of equals?
> 
> I am paying a company to be a member of a group. I am not going to a store to buy a product.



I don't think that's a correct perspective at all.  A week is like money in your wallet.  There are a number of merchants who will take that week from you and give you something back. You spend your money with whatever merchant gives you the most value for your week.

I fail to see any significant difference between that and, for example, deciding whether I should buy my paint at a big retailer like Home Depot or an independent paint store.  You just go with whomever provides the best value.

+++++++

I also have no idea what this "equals" concept is that you are talking about.  When did RCI become a co-op?


----------



## bluehende

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I don't think that's a correct perspective at all.  A week is like money in your wallet.  There are a number of merchants who will take that week from you and give you something back. You spend your money with whatever merchant gives you the most value for your week.




The problem is that at the RCI store,  RCI takes your wallet before you go in.  And if you find nothing to buy, they don't give it back.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

bluehende said:


> The problem is that at the RCI store,  RCI takes your wallet before you go in.  And if you find nothing to buy, they don't give it back.


That question was raised in John's companion thread at ts4ms. 



			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> GrayFal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting info..... I guess we will wait and see.
> 
> BTW, will you know the value of your week BEFORE you deposit?
> And the value required of those trades you want?
> Whatdid your source say?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes to both.
Click to expand...

So if what John is saying is correct, you will be able to keep your week in your wallet while you browse around.  And perhaps even be able to see what would be required to make certain exchanges should a week of that type become available.


----------



## jamstew

Although I still plan to stop depositing to RCI as soon as I manage to use the deposits I already have in, I love the idea of being able to combine the values. Right now, I can't get anything decent with my (supposedly red) 2BR summer week--and by decent I mean another 2BR, even in a slower season except in overdeveloped areas. It will be a good way for me to finish using my deposits and get out.


----------



## AFARR

*As a newbie....I have to wonder...*

Having just purchased my first week (red week on the OBX) if this will be a help or a hindrance.

However....from what I've read of the RCI Lawsuit, I think it might be a good thing.   Seems like a fair number of people are getting disgusted with RCI (hence the lawsuit)...people that had used them for years with successful trades were no longer getting what they wanted, good weeks were suddenly showing up in the rental category (rather than for exchange), etc.    There does seem to be a number of people on here who still successfully use RCI, but they know the best way to deposit and search...which is probably beyond many new (or even long term) RCI members.   

This might be a good solution overall...the people that know how to use the system will still get the best trade credits (early deposit, etc. that they already use now), and it will be difficult for RCI to suddenly rent weeks that are deposited (instead of allowing for exchange).   

I do see several valid points above:
RCI's "valuation" may be way too subjective (or developer pushed).
Overdeveloped areas probably shouldn't have as high a trade value (however, they often do see a large number of visitors vs. some underdeveloped areas...so that my even out).
It will give traditional weeks owners a specific value on their property (and in looking at resale purchases...might be a good way to help find their real value) rather than allowing some vague formula to set the rate.

AFARR


----------



## AFARR

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I don't think that's a correct perspective at all.  A week is like money in your wallet.  There are a number of merchants who will take that week from you and give you something back. You spend your money with whatever merchant gives you the most value for your week.
> 
> Snip...



TR, 

I was looking at the news (and possible use of Trade Companies) in a similar fashion....for now RCI says "gimme your wallet if you want to browse" (as mentioned above).   Redweek says "you have $$$ to spend here in your wallet, this is what we have in that price range", II, etc. seem to have similar systems (I'm a newbie with no trades yet...so maybe someone can jump in on how they work).    This makes RCI say "You've got $$$ to spend"..at least you can then get an idea if it's worth shopping with them.

AFARR


----------



## AFARR

*A consensus?*

If RCI valued weeks based on:

#1.  Demand (and supply) in the area.
#2.  Size of Units.
#3.  Rating of Resort (from users/comments and resort location/amenities).
#4.  Demand Week (High, Red, White Blue) for the area.

With a fairly objective criteria...would that make for a fair valuation?


And, as a final note....I have to wonder if this might be driven not so much by the Class Action suit (since it appears to be a simple slap on the wrist...if not a "high five" for RCI)...but by the people who are still upset about it and are pushing the State's Atty General(s) to look into it.

AFARR


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

AFARR said:


> If RCI valued weeks based on:
> 
> #1.  Demand (and supply) in the area.
> #2.  Size of Units.
> #3.  Rating of Resort (from users/comments and resort location/amenities).
> #4.  Demand Week (High, Red, White Blue) for the area.
> 
> With a fairly objective criteria...would that make for a fair valuation?



Ostensibly, right now RCI values weeks almost entirely based on supply and demand, with the added imposition of a filter that prevents someone from being offered a week at a resort that is deemed too much of a downgrade in quality.

This has led to the recognition among the savvy that the worst possible situation is to own a low demand week at a nice resort in an overbuilt area.  Conversely, the best week to own is a peak demand week in a good (but not great) resort in a popular area with a limited number of timeshares.

Rating of the resort generally enters the picture only in terms of the filter I mentioned above; it effectively blocks the owner at a resort with high ratings from ever being offered a week at a lower rated resort even though the trade power might match.

*******

Color of the week is almost meaningless.  There are many areas where, as a sop to developers, the resort is deemed "red" almost the entire year.  But since RCI bases demand in the weeks system on demand, many owners of "red" weeks have found that their "red" weeks aren't even pink.

******

IMHO - the only thing that should matter is supply and demand.  The problem right now is that someone depositing gets no information on what the true value is for their week, nor do they get good information on what are realistic trades given the value of the week they have deposited.


----------



## MuranoJo

AFARR said:


> If RCI valued weeks based on:
> 
> #1.  Demand (and supply) in the area.
> #2.  Size of Units.
> #3.  Rating of Resort (from users/comments and resort location/amenities).
> #4.  Demand Week (High, Red, White Blue) for the area.
> 
> With a fairly objective criteria...would that make for a fair valuation?
> 
> 
> And, as a final note....I have to wonder if this might be driven not so much by the Class Action suit (since it appears to be a simple slap on the wrist...if not a "high five" for RCI)...but by the people who are still upset about it and are pushing the State's Atty General(s) to look into it.
> 
> AFARR


I would make #4 a #2 in your list. People look for the area, then they look for available timeframes...after that, they get picky about size of unit, resort rating, etc.  

This is a generalization--some people limit their searches to the resort and will go to demand weeks from there.


----------



## Carolinian

#1 Demand needs to be resort specific, not just for the area.  Same with supply.
#2 May already be part of demand factor, but worth adding as a seperate factor.
#3 Already part of demand factor, as it is one of the drivers of demand.  However it is a lesser driver than location (also already factored in to demand).  None of the drivers of demand should be double counted by being used as a seperate factor for trade value, as that would be highly unfair to resorts that excelled in another of the drivers of demand.
#4 Color codes are virtually meaningless.  Many were established many years ago and not changed even though exchange dynamics changed greatly in the resort area in subsequent years.  There is also the problem of the phony ''red all year'' overbuilt areas like the Canary Islands and Orlando.  Demand should be week to week based on historic data for each week at each resort.




AFARR said:


> If RCI valued weeks based on:
> 
> #1.  Demand (and supply) in the area.
> #2.  Size of Units.
> #3.  Rating of Resort (from users/comments and resort location/amenities).
> #4.  Demand Week (High, Red, White Blue) for the area.
> 
> With a fairly objective criteria...would that make for a fair valuation?
> 
> 
> And, as a final note....I have to wonder if this might be driven not so much by the Class Action suit (since it appears to be a simple slap on the wrist...if not a "high five" for RCI)...but by the people who are still upset about it and are pushing the State's Atty General(s) to look into it.
> 
> AFARR


----------



## Carolinian

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> ******
> 
> IMHO - the only thing that should matter is supply and demand.



+1 Spot on!


----------



## Carolinian

RCI is properly more like a stock exchange than a store.  A store is selling its own goods, not a quasi-fiduciary which helps facilitiate trades among members for a fee.

*****

This combining value of blue weeks argument is a total dud.  Having to combine m/f's makes this absolutely a non-starter.  This will lead to those blue week owners who own to trade, and have not already done so, dumping their blue weeks.  The fire sale of short shelf life inventory used to be the prop for the value of blue weeks, but RCI has fraudulently diverted this to Points.

I would also use the term ''low demand weeks'' rather than blue weeks, since there are some off season ''red'' weeks in places like the Canary Islands and Orlando which in an honest system would be blue.  Similarly there are resorts like two I own at in Europe where any week including blue or white weeks almost never appears in RCI availibility.  These weeks are high demand even if they are blue.




T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Why is transparency needed?
> 
> When people go to a store they don't demand transparency as to how the store sets prices.  All a consumer needs to know is how much money they have in their wallet (i.e., how much their week is worth) and how much the goods in the store will cost (i.e., the price needed to get the weeks that are inventory.
> 
> From that information you can make the decision as to whether or not you want to shop at that store, or take your business somewhere else.  If a store persists in overpricing inventory, the stuff sits on the shelf until it loses value.
> 
> ********
> 
> You've long advocated the value of using independent exchange companies because they offer better value.  I would think you would be thrilled to see RCI do this, because the better value offered by independents will be totally evident.  And if RCI does goose trade power to inflate the value of certain weeks and undervalue other desirable weeks, the discrepancies will be even more apparent.
> 
> I would think that independent companies would be glad to see this happen.
> 
> ****
> 
> This also seems to me to add value to blue weeks.  Because if the system allows week values to be combined, blue weeks will still have all of the trade value they currently have, but they will have the added value of being used to upgrade the value of another week.


----------



## stevedmatt

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I don't think that's a correct perspective at all.  A week is like money in your wallet.  There are a number of merchants who will take that week from you and give you something back. You spend your money with whatever merchant gives you the most value for your week.
> 
> I fail to see any significant difference between that and, for example, deciding whether I should buy my paint at a big retailer like Home Depot or an independent paint store.  You just go with whomever provides the best value.
> 
> +++++++
> 
> I also have no idea what this "equals" concept is that you are talking about.  When did RCI become a co-op?





Carolinian said:


> RCI is properly more like a stock exchange than a store.  A store is selling its own goods, not a quasi-fiduciary which helps facilitiate trades among members for a fee.



I mean equals in the sense that we are all members who have paid the same fee to get in. As Carolinian states, they are an exchange company, offering members a means to exchange their weeks for a fee. They have certainly become a store, but I actually feel the initial concept was that of a co-op.

I don't know of a store where I have to pay $89 a year to shop there. Then I essentially have to give them $300-900 (value of my week) to step in the door to see what's inside. Then, if I find something I like, they charge me a mandatory $179 fee to carry it to my car. I really fail to see how you see them as a store. This definitely isn't the way shopping at Home Depot goes.

The need for transparency is the need to see what is available before giving them my week. It is also the need to see how they determined the value of my week, and the week I am trading for. As stated before, what is to stop them from taking payoffs to raise the value of a certain resorts weeks? 

Also, are they still going to be able to put junk weeks into their inventory and rent out the prime weeks? This is a rhetorical question. Since the possibility exists for 2-1 trades when you deposit a prime week, shouldn't RCI need to insert 2 junk weeks into their inventory when the remove a Prime week to rent out?


----------



## bnoble

> I have a blue week that I used to get an off-season Orlando week (used to have two blue weeks but gave away one of them), and I can rent an identical week directly from RCI much cheaper than my MF ($480) + exchange fee. I am anxious to be done with that week, I can tell you that.


Maybe the problem is that your week is essentially worthless---it costs more to maintain it than anyone would pay to stay there.  I'm not sure why it is RCI's responsibility to give that week value.

For those concerned about RCI setting values, and want some outside objective evaluation: it exists.  It's called "renting on the open market."


----------



## Carolinian

*Giving them the benefit of the doubt*

Lets say that RCI really wants to get this right and has no hidden agenda.  How would they set it up to be fair, honest, and objective?

1) *dynamic values*  Set the value of your deposit at the time of deposit.  That is sensible and fair and is what they do now.  For exchanges, adjust constantly based on changing supply and demand.  Value each week at each resort based on a fair mix of historic supply and demand and current supply and demand.  Use no extraneous factors like double counting award status, something that is already inherently factored into demand.  For a set of numbers to be dynamic, they would have to be published only electronically, not with paper and ink.  RCI might actually be thinking in that direction given the way they have already shrunk the resort directory to save trees (and money) and suggested that members use the online directory instead.

2) *transparency of value setting* Publish the formula for setting values and link to the underlying data that justifies it, or alternatively have a third party accounting firm audit it and certify that it complies with the published formula.

3) *continue reductions for short shelf life inventory*  Continue some arrangement to substantially discount late inventory.  If Points people are going to have access to Weeks last minute inventory, it would only be fair to give Weeks members access to last minute Points inventory for similar reducitons in value.  Another option would be to give Weeks members first crack at last minute Weeks inventory before anyone else had a shot at it.

4) *treat size of units differently*  Hopefully the data would allow simply seperating the supply and demand data for different size units at the same resort.  If not this would have to be done arbitrarily but fairly.

5) *Don't give in to developer pressure* Don't even take a call from a developer wanting a special arrangement on assigning value.  Use supply and demand and let the chips fall where they may.

6) *transparency for weeks removed for rentals or added* Fully disclose what weeks have been removed for rentals and what weeks added into the system by RCI.  Also disclose weeks transfered between Points and Weeks.

7) *timing* Do not reduce the window in which to make exchanges.  Do disclose the added trade power for early deposits as that will help encourage early deposits.

8) *eliminate downward quality filter*  This has always been a very annoying feature at RCI, essentially substituting the opinion of some RCI bureaucrat of what resorts I would like for my own judgment.  They need to keep their opinions to themselves not inflict them on me.


----------



## Carolinian

bnoble said:


> Maybe the problem is that your week is essentially worthless---it costs more to maintain it than anyone would pay to stay there.  I'm not sure why it is RCI's responsibility to give that week value.
> 
> For those concerned about RCI setting values, and want some outside objective evaluation: it exists.  It's called "renting on the open market."



. . . and since it has the same supply / demand characteristics as that off season Orlando week, then the off season Orlando week must also be essentially worthless.  

The problem with using rental values as a mark of the value of timeshares is that RCI has artificially depressed the rental market by flooding the market with exchange deposits they are renting out.


----------



## sandkastle4966

I don't like to prospect of 'combining' weeks at all.  I don't think that 2 or 3 dogs equals a tiger !


----------



## AFARR

Carolinian said:


> Lets say that RCI really wants to get this right and has no hidden agenda.  How would they set it up to be fair, honest, and objective?
> 
> 1) *dynamic values*  Set the value of your deposit at the time of deposit.  That is sensible and fair and is what they do now.  For exchanges, adjust constantly based on changing supply and demand.  Value each week at each resort based on a fair mix of historic supply and demand and current supply and demand.  Use no extraneous factors like double counting award status, something that is already inherently factored into demand.  For a set of numbers to be dynamic, they would have to be published only electronically, not with paper and ink.  RCI might actually be thinking in that direction given the way they have already shrunk the resort directory to save trees (and money) and suggested that members use the online directory instead.
> 
> 2) *transparency of value setting* Publish the formula for setting values and link to the underlying data that justifies it, or alternatively have a third party accounting firm audit it and certify that it complies with the published formula.
> 
> 3) *continue reductions for short shelf life inventory*  Continue some arrangement to substantially discount late inventory.  If Points people are going to have access to Weeks last minute inventory, it would only be fair to give Weeks members access to last minute Points inventory for similar reducitons in value.  Another option would be to give Weeks members first crack at last minute Weeks inventory before anyone else had a shot at it.
> 
> 4) *treat size of units differently*  Hopefully the data would allow simply seperating the supply and demand data for different size units at the same resort.  If not this would have to be done arbitrarily but fairly.
> 
> 5) *Don't give in to developer pressure* Don't even take a call from a developer wanting a special arrangement on assigning value.  Use supply and demand and let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> 6) *transparency for weeks removed for rentals or added* Fully disclose what weeks have been removed for rentals and what weeks added into the system by RCI.  Also disclose weeks transfered between Points and Weeks.
> 
> 7) *timing* Do not reduce the window in which to make exchanges.  Do disclose the added trade power for early deposits as that will help encourage early deposits.



Carolinian....

Doesn't look like we're too far apart.   #1 and #7 in yours are almost the same...the value is set when the deposit is made....so if there's no OBX weeks available and you deposit your week, you are kicking into the low supply & presumably high demand end...getting more value.   That increases your trade value.     Turn in your Orlando week when there's 47,263 available in that same time period..the reverse is true.

I do want to see some weighting for the size of the unit....a 3Br should trade better than a 1 Br or Studio in the same area (I'm looking at Lock-Offs as possible future purchases...and if I get one, it could then be considered trade-able based on 1Br + 2 BR, or 3Br..depending on the best value.

#5 I heartily agree with...that allows the Developer to overprice their weeks to the suckers prospective purchasers, and gets people even more disgusted with the TS purchase process.


I think they could come up with a VALID formula for demand (rather than Red/White/Blue)...based on demand (or filled units) for that area AND resort...hell, my wife joined a Gym recently...and she got a spreadsheet showing the average number of people using the Gym for each hour it was open...as part of the RCI affiliation, maybe each resort should document Owners staying, Exchangers staying, Rental Staying and Open units for each week.  

Then they come up with a 'base value' in trade credits on the resort and 'added value' credits....the base comes from Supply (units in the resort, units in the area) /Demand (how full the resort is, how many requests to get there each year), Size of Unit, and some kind of rating on the resort (comments, access to amenities or attractions, etc....not necessarily the Gold/Silver, etc.).   Probably weighted to Supply/Demand, then Size, then Rating.

Then they do the 'added value' credit...deposit more than a year early, you get extra credits...deposit less than 6 months out..no credit.   Deposit when there are few other similar units in inventory...additional credits.

So....a 3 Br Lockoff on the Beach at OBX on July 4th week...would be worth 50 credits.   Deposit it 1 year out, 5 extra credits.    No other units in inventory...5 more credits for the scarcity at the time of deposit.   So you get a base of 50 credits, + the 10 added value credits.   The same unit off the beach (BIS Kitty Hawk) would be 47 credits under the same conditions..

A 2Br away from the beach, end of September week would be 30 credits...they can still get the early deposit credit and probably not the full scarcity at time of deposit credit (since there's likely to be at least a few of them).

A 1 Br away from the beach in February would be 15 credits...so they need to get the maximum from their added value credits...

A 2 BR Orlando end of Sept. week would be 25 credits (yeah, Orlando's popular, but overbuilt), assuming you have to drive a bit to get to the major attractions....get a place where you trip over Mickey or Goofy when you walk out the door in the AM...then it's 30 credits...


I do like the idea of some (even if it's slight) weighting towards the amenities and reviews at the resort....it encourages the resort to keep the place up to get their higher ratings (and the HOA will not let it fall off if their members lose trade and resale value).

AFARR


----------



## timeos2

*It is value at one area but not another? I don't think so*



Carolinian said:


> I would also use the term ''low demand weeks'' rather than blue weeks, since there are some off season ''red'' weeks in places like the Canary Islands and Orlando which in an honest system would be blue.  Similarly there are resorts like two I own at in Europe where any week including blue or white weeks almost never appears in RCI availibility.  These weeks are high demand even if they are blue.





Carolinian said:


> . . . and since it has the same supply / demand characteristics as that off season Orlando week, then the off season Orlando week must also be essentially worthless.



Interesting and all in the same thread. 

I would argue that in the case of the Orlando week, just as stated for the "blue" week, since the time in fact gets claimed (demand) 99% of the time it too has high demand even if they are red (pink) thus far from "essentially worthless".  Sorry but you can't have it both ways!  

And I do agree it should all be by RESORT, not overall area, as that changes the demand significantly. Demand for the far too many units at Orange Lake or Wastegate kills value while smaller resorts, say DVC or others, may be 110% filled at the same time. To say they "essentially worthless" just because there are 100 Wastegate weeks waiting to be taken is ridiculous.


----------



## JMAESD84

DeniseM said:


> Sounds like Redweek!



What is being described here is exactly what Redweek does today.  Absent the formula for setting exchange values on deposits, which probably won't be provided by any of the exchange companies.

Redweek also charges a few more points to obtain an exchange than the number given to the depositer.  This is to help cover the burn rate (loss of inventory never exchanged).  Last minute inventory is offered for a points discount and also put up for rent. This recognizes the lower value of the short shelf life inventory and helps manage the burn rate.

Valuations are given before deposit and adjusted for demand.  You may disagree with the valuation offer, but the choice to deposit is always yours.  They have a much lower membership fee and exchange fee.  They also give 3 years to use your points.

RCI's weeks exchange system should simply transition to the one that Redweek has modeled or alternatively.....

Everyone using RCI weeks should simply switch to Redweek.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> The only way that could be a fair system is if 1) the method of setting values is fully transparent to prevent the developer politicking of RCI for values not justified by the market, and 2) the values remain dynamic rather than rigged and frozen like RCI Points.  If the numbers are published but the method of setting them is hidden, then it will be open season for developers getting RCI to cook the books.  Deal appropriately with those two issues, and I would not have that much problem with it.  Of course, I will still probably use DAE and SFX instead.



There would be both positive and negative aspects to a dynamic system, though that is what I would think would work best.  Convert what exists now, just show us the numbers as well.  When we make our trade we see if it is a trade up or down.

But I see some real negatives to a transparent dynamic system.  Inexperienced exchangers will look once and see the value of their week when they decide to deposit, while more experienced exchangers will still be able to play the system by watching the daily value of their potential deposit and only depositing at its peak.  Woe betide the owner who pays his maintenace fee early in order to deposit, only to find the resort bulk-banks a bunch of weeks between the time he makes his decision and the time he is able to make the actual deposit.

Again for the inexeperienced exchanger, the "value" of his deposit at the time of deposit only exists during that "snapshot" of the system.  He checks online to see what he can exchange for, given his week's value, and decides to deposit, only to find that 4 days later, when his resort has confirmed his deposit, the cost of what he wants has gone up.  It's still available, but he can't get it.



Carolinian said:


> Unless there is TOTAL TRANSPARENCY of the mechanism of setting values, the system is far, far worse than what exists now.
> 
> We know how easy it is to trade into the overbuilt areas now, due to the vast oversupply there.  If these values inflate their trading power, then it will be revealed as a total fraud by RCI.  Points has done that and I suspect given who is so happy about this one, this new system will also overvalue the overbuilt areas.



In a dynamic system, I don't see that really being an issue.  If the values of those weeks are too high, nobody will exchange into them until the cost falls as the use date nears.  Owners at other area resorts should be more concerned with the value of their week compared to the system as a whole - they are not going to be trying to exchange into the resorts you consider overvalued, so it doesn't really impact them.  RCI has a certain amount of supply, and if they end up giving out more "credits" to those owners than they eventually take in because they end up discounting those weeks, they will eventually give those weeks a more permanent discount.

While I agree with rickandcindy, that this could have the potential to be terrible for weeks owner, but it also has the potential to be something very good.  Over time it should provide some balance - If I trade down a bit one year with my week, I have some points left over to trade up a bit the next time.  It does mean those who are always trading up will have to adjust, because they won't always be trading up.  For the blue week owners, if they maintain a 45-day window, where the cost to trade into anything is equal to the cost of the "lowest" week in the system, they can maintain some value.  For the low-demand owner who also owns a higher-demand week, they could be combined for two weeks in a resort with an average demand.

What should be interesting is how such a new system drives demand in some areas.  In Orlando, will be see demand among the various resorts balance out, with the nicer resorts having a slightly higher value, or will people be willing to pay a true premium to stay at the better resorts?  Will there be a change in the pattern of who stays at which resorts?  Will we finally see a change in behavior regarding those who book the 2BR they don't really need, just because it's available?  Under the current system, if a 2BR (or even 3BR) is available for the same "cost" as a 1BR, many people book the larger unit, leaving only smaller units available for those who look later.  If the larger unit cost more, perhaps more people will book the smaller units, and we will in effect see more availability in the larger units.


----------



## logan115

Shouldn't the current RCI points value for a given week be a good proxy for what to expect in the new valuation ? Can't see RCi being able to defend it being worth XX points, but on the weeks side having a lower value.  

Chris


----------



## bluehende

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> That question was raised in John's companion thread at ts4ms.
> 
> 
> So if what John is saying is correct, you *will* be able to keep your week in your wallet while you browse around.  And perhaps even be able to see what would be required to make certain exchanges should a week of that type become available.




I will speak for myself...not John or RCI.

You need to change 1 word ..... will to should.  Kind of changes the meaning.  In this instance it is exactly what I do when I enter a retail store.


----------



## Carolinian

timeos2 said:


> Interesting and all in the same thread.
> 
> I would argue that in the case of the Orlando week, just as stated for the "blue" week, since the time in fact gets claimed (demand) 99% of the time it too has high demand even if they are red (pink) thus far from "essentially worthless".  Sorry but you can't have it both ways!
> 
> And I do agree it should all be by RESORT, not overall area, as that changes the demand significantly. Demand for the far too many units at Orange Lake or Wastegate kills value while smaller resorts, say DVC or others, may be 110% filled at the same time. To say they "essentially worthless" just because there are 100 Wastegate weeks waiting to be taken is ridiculous.



Actually, I remember Bootleg revealing that the resort with the biggest oversupply of weeks in the entire RCI system was Vacation Villas at Parkway, an Orlando resort.  Apparently it even outdoes Wastegate in that regard.

You get a lot of your Orlando occupancy via exchanges from off season weeks elsewhere.  If RCI changes the math on that where they can no longer make those trades, Orlando is going to have a lot more units going empty.  The same is true in the Canary Islands and some other overbuilt places.


----------



## krj9999

I'm still unclear how far they will take this concept.  For example, will people that can't see Disney units now be able to do so in the future, even if it takes 2 or 3 weeks to obtain a trade?

Also, it would seem that if a fixed value is set for each unit, that they would really need to set a +/- from this fixed value on what you could trade with.  For example, if the week you want requires 45 credits and your deposit is only 40 credits, that this would be sufficiently close to obtain the trade without having to commit another week.  But a deposit worth only 30 credits would be too far away to obtain.  I guess it also partly depends on how many point levels they come up with.  If it is anything like RCI points is currently, it will really be a pain to deal with.

And how will they address existing deposits?  How will these transition to the credit system?


----------



## rickandcindy23

bnoble said:


> Maybe the problem is that your week is essentially worthless---it costs more to maintain it than anyone would pay to stay there.  I'm not sure why it is RCI's responsibility to give that week value.
> 
> For those concerned about RCI setting values, and want some outside objective evaluation: it exists.  It's called "renting on the open market."



That's true, and so is a SUPPOSED RED Orlando week essentially worthless.  Can you imagine owning a week in Orlando, paying $800 in fees, and that same week rents for $249 through RCI?  So I guess I got an equal exchange, but I could have rented it cheaper from their rental inventory.  The new exchange fees are outrageous, and I won't be paying those anymore, unless it's Last Call in Points.  

I could probably get $480 out of my blue week, should I choose to rent it.  I may do that this year.

And by the way, RCI was different for many years.  And we should know, because we have owned and mostly traded that week for the past 27 years.  We were able to get Point at Poipu for June with our blue week, as well as some great trades to Orlando, Southern California, and the Washington coast in prime summer.  

RCI has changed, and the more people that are aware of the changes, the better.  HOA boards need to let owners know how RCI treats exchangers, along with a list of alternatives.  All resorts should be dual-affiliated with II as well.  It's the only RIGHT thing to do.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Mel said:


> While I agree with rickandcindy, that this could have the potential to be What should be interesting is how such a new system drives demand in some areas.  In Orlando, will be see demand among the various resorts balance out, with the nicer resorts having a slightly higher value, or will people be willing to pay a true premium to stay at the better resorts?  Will there be a change in the pattern of who stays at which resorts?  Will we finally see a change in behavior regarding those who book the 2BR they don't really need, just because it's available?  Under the current system, if a 2BR (or even 3BR) is available for the same "cost" as a 1BR, many people book the larger unit, leaving only smaller units available for those who look later.  If the larger unit cost more, perhaps more people will book the smaller units, and we will in effect see more availability in the larger units.



This will be interesting to see.  If I can get a 2 bedroom, I do it, but if I did stay in RCI weeks (no way am I staying in that system), I would take a 1 bedroom and save some of my "points" for something else.  

Will RCI get rid of the 1-in-4 rules?  Those rules actually devalue resorts like Orange Lake and Hilton, because the lowliest of the low weeks, even my blue week, can sometimes get 2 and 3 bedroom units.


----------



## timeos2

*Close isn't good enough*



krj9999 said:


> I'm still unclear how far they will take this concept.  For example, will people that can't see Disney units now be able to do so in the future, even if it takes 2 or 3 weeks to obtain a trade?
> 
> Also, it would seem that if a fixed value is set for each unit, that they would really need to set a +/- from this fixed value on what you could trade with.  For example, if the week you want requires 45 credits and your deposit is only 40 credits, that this would be sufficiently close to obtain the trade without having to commit another week.  But a deposit worth only 30 credits would be too far away to obtain.  I guess it also partly depends on how many point levels they come up with.  If it is anything like RCI points is currently, it will really be a pain to deal with.
> 
> And how will they address existing deposits?  How will these transition to the credit system?



Yes, they should see the DVC units and have the change to cobble together the value needed. A big improvement and one that lets owners make the choices. 

Just speculating on this one but I'd imagine that existing deposits will simply be assigned a number  - one that would have been assigned if the system was in place when it was deposited. 

As for "close enough" I don't think it would work that way. Since you get change back you would need to use the extra 5 credits from some source - even if it was a 50 value week - then you'd have 45 credits left for the next trade rather than 50. Unlike the current system you don't just lose that excess value. They wouldn't just "forgive" the extra required credits is my best guess. 

And kudos to the post that noted this type of system can (hopefully will) lead to exchangers being more careful with reservations and thus conserving credits. So if you really only need a 1 bedroom (or a two) you don't waste extra credits to take a 2 (or 3) just because it's there. That is one of the big pluses to points - it makes the members far more careful to maximize value thus leaving more available for others who also (hopefully) shop carefully with their value. Big win for everybody on that one.


----------



## Carolinian

My guess is that they will bring in a process to buy a few extra credits for that.  As much as RCI is into rentals these days, that will make exchanges sometimes even a partial rental.  They may look at this whole thing as a cash cow.





krj9999 said:


> I'm still unclear how far they will take this concept.  For example, will people that can't see Disney units now be able to do so in the future, even if it takes 2 or 3 weeks to obtain a trade?
> 
> Also, it would seem that if a fixed value is set for each unit, that they would really need to set a +/- from this fixed value on what you could trade with.  For example, if the week you want requires 45 credits and your deposit is only 40 credits, that this would be sufficiently close to obtain the trade without having to commit another week.  But a deposit worth only 30 credits would be too far away to obtain.  I guess it also partly depends on how many point levels they come up with.  If it is anything like RCI points is currently, it will really be a pain to deal with.
> 
> And how will they address existing deposits?  How will these transition to the credit system?


----------



## krj9999

I guess it depends on how many levels of credits there are, and how far apart they are.  Are the jumps between levels 1 credit or 5 credits.  And if a 2BR Disney is 60 credits, is a winter east coast beach week 10 credits or 25 credits.  As others have said, demand vs. supply needs to be the overriding factor.  Which it is not currently in looking at the RCI points grid for exchanging into weeks resorts.

Transparency is one thing.  Whether the new system will be fair remains to be seen.



timeos2 said:


> Yes, they should see the DVC units and have the change to cobble together the value needed. A big improvement and one that lets owners make the choices.
> 
> Just speculating on this one but I'd imagine that existing deposits will simply be assigned a number  - one that would have been assigned if the system was in place when it was deposited.
> 
> As for "close enough" I don't think it would work that way. Since you get change back you would need to use the extra 5 credits from some source - even if it was a 50 value week - then you'd have 45 credits left for the next trade rather than 50. Unlike the current system you don't just lose that excess value. They wouldn't just "forgive" the extra required credits is my best guess.
> 
> And kudos to the post that noted this type of system can (hopefully will) lead to exchangers being more careful with reservations and thus conserving credits. So if you really only need a 1 bedroom (or a two) you don't waste extra credits to take a 2 (or 3) just because it's there. That is one of the big pluses to points - it makes the members far more careful to maximize value thus leaving more available for others who also (hopefully) shop carefully with their value. Big win for everybody on that one.


----------



## rickandcindy23

They already value resorts in the points system.  I think the values will be very similar.  For example, you can get a 1 bedroom at Hilton Grand Vacations Club on I Drive for about 32K points in early December or most of January.  My red weeks I use for PFD are valued at 45,500 pts, so I get to keep some of my points toward another exchange.  But if I want a week in a 2 bed at Orange Lake's River Island for the same time of year, low season, I have to pay 52,500 points.  High season is generally 30% higher for the same thing. 



krj9999 said:


> I guess it depends on how many levels of credits there are, and how far apart they are.  Are the jumps between levels 1 credit or 5 credits.  And if a 2BR Disney is 60 credits, is a winter east coast beach week 10 credits or 25 credits.  As others have said, demand vs. supply needs to be the overriding factor.  Which it is not currently in looking at the RCI points grid for exchanging into weeks resorts.
> 
> Transparency is one thing.  Whether the new system will be fair remains to be seen.


----------



## akp

*Some thoughts...*

My only RCI trade went like this.  I deposited a low-cost studio at a highly rated resort in the off season.  In return I got a 2 bedroom at a beautiful resort in Orlando for the exact same week I had already reserved in mid-summer.  (Both resorts were Bluegreen resorts).  I cancelled my week at the 2 bedroom and go enough points back to book another 4 studios should I have wanted to.

I "got" far better than I gave, obviously, even taking my exchange fee into account.  This sword cuts both ways, and I was too wary to put any high value deposits into RCI because who knew if next time I'd be on the losing end of the deal, depositing a high cost 2 bedroom and getting only an off-season studio offered in return?  So I ditched the RCI Weeks system in favor of points.

I like this proposed RCI Weeks system for a couple of reasons:

1) I like being able to see what I'll get before I commit.  This is possible in II and in RCI Points and it helps me figure out what I need to deposit to get what I really want.  I'm willing to deposit something good to get what I need, but I want more information about what RCI thinks my deposit is worth before I commit.  I hate the black hole.  

2) I think the idea that a single valuable deposit could get you multiple less expensive weeks is a good thing (as opposed to an earlier poster who said 3 dogs don't equal a tiger).  If I deposit a fantastic week but what I'm looking for myself is an off season Colorado week and an off season beach week, I LOVE being able to make that single great deposit do double duty.  Sure, 2 exchange fees, but I'm not looking for freebies - I'm looking for a robust system that lets me deposit something and get a reasonable value back.

People who right now have high MF high demand weeks may not be depositing them because there isn't anything attractive enough to make up for that one week, but if they can get 2 good weeks out of it, they might go ahead and put that prime week into RCI.  

3) I also like being able to combine lesser weeks to get the big prize is great, too.  People who own timeshares that are not top-of-the-line might get a lot more use and value out of their ownerships by doing this.


----------



## krj9999

Yes they do.  But how is a 1BR at a standard resort in overbuilt Orlando such as Celebrity Resorts Lake Buena Vista, currently listed at 23,500 points for low demand weeks 1-4 and 48-50, virtually the same point total as a 1BR standard resort in limited supplied Ocean City MD for prime summer weeks (24,000 points for exchanging into via points)?

It makes absolutely no sense.



rickandcindy23 said:


> They already value resorts in the points system.  I think the values will be very similar.  For example, you can get a 1 bedroom at Hilton Grand Vacations Club on I Drive for about 32K points in early December or most of January.  My red weeks I use for PFD are valued at 45,500 pts, so I get to keep some of my points toward another exchange.  But if I want a week in a 2 bed at Orange Lake's River Island for the same time of year, low season, I have to pay 52,500 points.  High season is generally 30% higher for the same thing.


----------



## "Roger"

I seriously doubt that a transparent dynamic system would be very popular.  When maintenence fees are due at a resort a bunch of people will pay and deposit all at once.  The person who was just a day too slow discovers that while fellow owners received a "28" for their deposits of a two bedroom unit just yesterday, she is only being offered a "17."  ("Sorry, supply is up. A lot of owners paid their maintenence fees recently and deposited so that supply now well outstrips current demand.  Thus, in accordance with the rules of dynamic supply and demand, we now consider your unit to be a below average deposit. Perhaps if you wait a couple of months, things will be better for you.")

Meanwhile, on TUG, instead of the occassional post about when is the best time to buy a plane ticket to Hawaii, the boards would be inundated with posts like "When is the best time to deposit my two bedroom such and such in order to get a higher trade number?"  or "I can get such and such a unit for '28' units now.  Do you think I should take it or do you think the price will be lower in September?"

Add to that, people will be holding off their deposits because they don't see the units that they want to trade for at the moment.  Not having deposited, their desire for such and such resort will not be measured because currently there is no official "demand" for the resort because people have not deposited to ask for it.

People HATE the way airline prices go up and down.  They would hate a transparent dynamic supply and demand system in timesharing as much (or, in all likelihood, even more).

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

IMAGINARY DIALOGUE

Owner:  I just saw on TUG where someone got a "31" for depositing a two bedroom week at my resort.  That is a good number, much better than I got for the same type of deposit last year.  I would like to deposit my unit now.
RCI rep:  I am sorry, ma'am, but I can only give you a "21" for your unit today.
Owner: How can that be?  I saw on the internet that people were getting a "31"  for EXACTLY what I have.
RCI:  That was yesterday, but we had a bulk spacebank yesterday so now we have a great supply relative to current demand.
Owner:  Bulk spacebank?
RCI rep:  Yes, the developer of your resort keeps a very close eye on what units are bringing in.  At 11:32 last night, he deposited a slew of unsold units in order to get the maximum amount of trading power for them.  That helps him with sales.
Owner:  Oh, I see.  That sounds so fair.  I really like the dynamic use of supply and demand - it is just like the stock market.  It ensures that I get the true value of my unit - nothing more, nothing less. (NOT!)

==================

People want to know the value of their unit based upon historical data.  They do not want to see timesharing become like playing the  commodities market (the most  dynamic and thus the most volutable of the markets).


----------



## bnoble

> I don't like to prospect of 'combining' weeks at all. I don't think that 2 or 3 dogs equals a tiger !


Every points system in the universe (Wyndham, RCI, DVC, etc. etc. etc.) works this way.  Some don't even have a notion of an underlying "week", but most do.  It hasn't been the end of the world in those systems, and is unlikely to be the end of the world in this one.



> And by the way, RCI was different for many years.


No one disputes that.  But, the fact that RCI used to give value to a week that on the open rental market is worthless doesn't mean they have any obligation to do so going forward.  You should be thankful they did so for as long as they did.


----------



## AFARR

"Roger" said:


> I seriously doubt that a transparent dynamic system would be very popular.
> 
> Snip...



Hence my thoughts on Fixed Base value (only changes periodically and very slight changes...like every 3 or 5 years based on the number of resorts in the area, the number of units in the resort, and the overall demand for the area and resort....not to mention downgrades/upgrades in the ratings for the resort) + some kind of a dynamic variable (how early you are depositing, sudden upsurge in demand, etc.).

AFARR


----------



## rickandcindy23

bnoble said:


> No one disputes that.  But, the fact that RCI used to give value to a week that on the open rental market is worthless doesn't mean they have any obligation to do so going forward.  You should be thankful they did so for as long as they did.



II still works that way, too, as long as your resort has a higher quality rating, you can still book pretty much anything.  I am preparing myself for the inevitable in II, too, and I am making sure that my traders still have value.  That means selling a few weeks.  

RCI didn't need to change, but because they are deciding what the value of what you own is, they are now putting themselves in the position of depriving weeks' owners of an exchange.  They choose to rent the good stuff and get cash for themselves.  

Where are the last-minute exchanges we used to be able to get with our weeks?  I was willing to get such an exchange with my blue weeks.  I couldn't get a week in Southern California with my blue week, but there it was, in Last Call for 9K points.  I guess I should just take 21,500 PFD RCI Points for our week and get two Last Call exchanges for one.  THAT is how badly RCI has affected our weeks.  

To compare RCI now to RCI of ten years ago, no comparison at all.  I am disappointed, but others keep saying our week is worthless.  You had to be there to experience the difference.  RCI made our week worthless.


----------



## bnoble

No.  Your week was always worthless, as measured by rental value vs. fees.  This is almost always true at seasonal resorts with fixed-fee/week structures.  High-demand owners pay less in fees than the week is worth in rental value.  Low-demand owners typically pay more.  

So, RCI didn't take anything away that was inherently yours.  Rather, they gave your week *value* "back in the day".  You owe them thanks.  Now that II is willing to do so, you should thank them with your business instead.  But, as you note, this too shall pass, so prepare.

The timeshare game is always changing.  You can lament the days gone by, you can figure out how to make the game work for you, or you can even do both if you like.  But the days gone by are not coming back.


----------



## HtownRose

A lot of this is over my head, but I think it may be a good thing my ts transfer is taking longer than I had hoped...hopefully this will be sorted by the time I'm able to use it.


----------



## Egret1986

*I wholeheartedly agree with this and experienced the same.*



bnoble said:


> No.  Your week was always worthless, as measured by rental value vs. fees.  This is almost always true at seasonal resorts with fixed-fee/week structures.  High-demand owners pay less in fees than the week is worth in rental value.  Low-demand owners typically pay more.
> 
> So, RCI didn't take anything away that was inherently yours.  Rather, they gave your week *value* "back in the day".  You owe them thanks.  Now that II is willing to do so, you should thank them with your business instead.  But, as you note, this too shall pass, so prepare.
> 
> The timeshare game is always changing.  You can lament the days gone by, you can figure out how to make the game work for you, or you can even do both if you like.  But the days gone by are not coming back.



I purchased an Outer Banks late March week (blue) in 1984.  I have been an RCI Weeks member since my first purchase.  RCI did give my blue week value.  I only used my actual week 3 times during my ownership (I gave this week away last year).  I always felt I received more than what I was exchanging.  

Change takes place in every aspect of life.  Resisting it is a no-win situation.  When the game changed, I got rid of the week.  RCI allowed me to get 25 great years of exchanges out of that week.  I have moved on.


----------



## Carolinian

Egret1986 said:


> I purchased an Outer Banks late March week (blue) in 1984.  I have been an RCI Weeks member since my first purchase.  RCI did give my blue week value.  I only used my actual week 3 times during my ownership (I gave this week away last year).  I always felt I received more than what I was exchanging.
> 
> Change takes place in every aspect of life.  Resisting it is a no-win situation.  When the game changed, I got rid of the week.  RCI allowed me to get 25 great years of exchanges out of that week.  I have moved on.



Late March is spring break on the OBX and the resorts tend to be full.  

The problem with getting good exchanges is primarily RCI raiding the spacebank in order to rent to the general public.

I owned a couple of blue weeks on the OBX at one time, too, purchased to trade to blue times in Europe.  I found owning in SA was a cheaper option and got rid of those blue weeks weeks some years ago.  However, I find that a prime summer week I presently own at a UK resort that typically shows no availibility at all any time of year itself makes an interesting comparison with that old OBX blue week.  I see a lot less today with that prime week when I look for UK availibility than I used to see with an OBX blue week in the UK 6 or 7 years ago.  That comes from RCI depleting its spacebank by renting to the public.

You are right that change happens, but in this case if they monkey with the system in a way that is adverse to resorts, then resorts need to make another type of change happen - change of their members from RCI to other exchange companies.


----------



## Carolinian

rickandcindy23 said:


> They already value resorts in the points system.  I think the values will be very similar.  For example, you can get a 1 bedroom at Hilton Grand Vacations Club on I Drive for about 32K points in early December or most of January.  My red weeks I use for PFD are valued at 45,500 pts, so I get to keep some of my points toward another exchange.  But if I want a week in a 2 bed at Orange Lake's River Island for the same time of year, low season, I have to pay 52,500 points.  High season is generally 30% higher for the same thing.



The numbers of the Points system are what are scary since so many of them are wacky.  The overpointing as in overbuilt Orlando to satisfy developers in one case in point.  But another developer driven points fraud is another good example.  RCI gave more points to BIS-Kitty Hawk, which is still in developer sales but is by far the lowest demand resort on the OBX due to poor location than to a comparable week at BIS-Duck, the second highest demand resort on the OBX, which was sold out.  Published numbers tables tend to cause such frauds, which is why the only way to prevent them is to make the formula for assigning points completely transparent, including the data behind it.


----------



## Carolinian

This concept of ''seasonal'' resorts makes no sense, as most every resort is seasonal.  All have high and low seasons.  Even places like New York and London, even if in those case even low season has more demand than supply.  The real question is always supply vs. demand.  The resorts that are open for problems are those with long periods in which supply exceeds demand, and that can happen even in ''red all year'' areas.




bnoble said:


> No.  Your week was always worthless, as measured by rental value vs. fees.  This is almost always true at seasonal resorts with fixed-fee/week structures.  High-demand owners pay less in fees than the week is worth in rental value.  Low-demand owners typically pay more.
> 
> So, RCI didn't take anything away that was inherently yours.  Rather, they gave your week *value* "back in the day".  You owe them thanks.  Now that II is willing to do so, you should thank them with your business instead.  But, as you note, this too shall pass, so prepare.
> 
> The timeshare game is always changing.  You can lament the days gone by, you can figure out how to make the game work for you, or you can even do both if you like.  But the days gone by are not coming back.


----------



## ondeadlin

The fact is, both II and RCI have a glut of mediocre resorts in very mediocre locations. It's actually surprising to me that neither has started to simply refuse to accept winter weeks from French Lick, Indiana or Cadillac, Michigan or any of a number of places. There is virtually NO demand for so many locations.

And yet many people who deposit those weeks expect to get decent trades. It's sort of funny.

I have one week I bottom feed with - a free Foxrun winter week. In a lot of ways, it's my most "fun" week, because every trade I get with it is a trade up. I use it either for inefficiencies in the system (ski weeks late in the season, for instance) or for last-minute trades. But if one day I couldn't get anything with it? I sure wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## AFARR

*Carolinian:*



> RCI gave more points to BIS-Kitty Hawk, which is still in developer sales but is by far the lowest demand resort on the OBX due to poor location than to a comparable week at BIS-Duck, the second highest demand resort on the OBX, which was sold out.



A couple of thoughts on that.   Background first...I lived in Richmond, VA for years and went to the OBX at least once a year (for about 5 of those years).  We toured BIS Duck (and almost bought a Blue week there...rescinded at the last minute...glad we did!) about 15 years ago (wife was preggo with the first kid at the time, so it's about that time).   We toured BIS Kitty Hawk once also.  I'm a newbie (looking at getting another week or two on the OBX at some point in the future, so I'm trying to keep an eye on the weeks and points that crop up).

#1.  There seem to be some poor reviews on Duck, especially on RCI (2.7 Stars vs. 3.8 for Kitty Hawk).   It does seem like the comments are justified (from looking a other boards)...even 15 years ago, there was some weathering on the outside of the buildings in Duck.    I think someone on here mentioned that KH was a Silver Crown now*****(Edited, RCI has the 4 little guy symbol instead of a silver crown...doesn't that mean it's dropped even further?), Duck is unrated.   

#2.  RCI Points, High Prime weeks (24-32).   3Br Lockoff  BIS KH: 95,500   Duck: 87,500   2 BR Lockoff KH: 86,000   Duck: 73,500.   (As an FYI...there was a points week at Outer Banks Beach Club II on Ebay...OBBC II isn't a "points" resort, but per the management...some people were able to convert a while back and still hold them as points weeks....Wk 19, 2 Br was 69k points, vs. 37K points for the same week at BIS Kitty Hawk).    

#3.  Duck...if I recall correctly, BIS Duck is a fairly large place (from the road running by the sound to the ocean)...if you figure the distance to the beach from the farthest building...I thought it was pretty close to the same distance from BIS Kitty Hawk to their private beach parking.   I wasn't wild about the overall location for KH (compared to Duck), but it wasn't horrible either...Duck has a better location (in my opinion), however it is much farther from a lot of the things to do down in the rest of the OBX.   

I agree that RCI and the Developer are probably (to some extent) colluding to increase the points (either bumping up the rating on the resort, or falsely elevating the points while still in development status), but some of the difference can be explained by other factors (age of the resort, comments, etc.).    

I don't have points...so I don't know if the 10 to 15% difference I gave above is that significant---maybe it is much more than I understand.

As a new owner (one red week, Outer Banks Beach Club II)...I'd like to see some way to "value" my week vs other things I could trade for (I intend to use it fairly frequently rather than trade...but it's nice to have options)..and I'd like to see the Resort working hard to increase the trade value (with a firm, documented base value, the HOA could put more pressure on the resort management to increase the value.

AFARR


----------



## timeos2

*It was nice that they did it but they never had to*



bnoble said:


> No.  Your week was always worthless, as measured by rental value vs. fees.  This is almost always true at seasonal resorts with fixed-fee/week structures.  High-demand owners pay less in fees than the week is worth in rental value.  Low-demand owners typically pay more.
> 
> So, RCI didn't take anything away that was inherently yours.  Rather, they gave your week *value* "back in the day".  You owe them thanks.  Now that II is willing to do so, you should thank them with your business instead.  But, as you note, this too shall pass, so prepare.
> 
> The timeshare game is always changing.  You can lament the days gone by, you can figure out how to make the game work for you, or you can even do both if you like.  But the days gone by are not coming back.



This is exactly right. RCI decided to give value to a use week that really had no value, as measured in rent vs annual fee one of the few absolute measures of value in an open market, but they had NO obligation whatsoever to do that. When it no longer made any sense they ended it. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the resort/owners to squeeze value out of those weeks OR simply absorb them into the general pool as dead time and charge all other weeks to cover those costs.  It is not an RCI problem or responsibility but if they choose to help create a value that is a plus - never a promise. Owners were lucky when they did it but have no right or guarantee that will happen or continue indefinitely.   

Placing responsibility for creating value on an independent third party is very risky as they can and will end that if it no longer makes financial sense to them. Only the resort/owners have the vested interest needed to find a permanent answer to the situation. That answer may change over time but will always be the responsibility of the resort/owners.


----------



## Mel

I think the difference between the BIS resorts is similar to the differences between the different parts of Orange Lake.  Not everyone agrees with the points differential, but there may be a real basis.  

I have stayed at BIS Kitty Hawk twice, and enjoyed both visits.  I also stayed at SeaScape, further down the road, though that was during Christmas week, so the beach didn't matter as much.  For the weeks when we stayed at Kitty Hawk, I would not have preferred to stay in Duck.  Why?  Because the KH units are nicer, and that complex is closer to the rest of the local activities.  Yes, there are plenty of people who care about being on the beach, rather than near it, but there are also many who want that little bit of luxury when on vacation, and don't care to be on the beach.  If you're on the beach, you have to contend with all the other people "on the beach."  If the beach is nearby, you can visit the beach when you want, and spend some time in seclusion when you don't.

The same applies at Orange Lake.  River Island is great to visit, but even if it cost less the stay there then the West Village, I wouldn't do it.  I like West Village better - because of the relative seclusion.  I have access to River Island when I want, but if I was staying there, I would be stuck in the middle of it all week.

I think this change is what RCI should have done when they went to points - convert everybody to the new system, and not charge for conversions.  If some resorts want to deal with split-week usage, let them, but don't demand it of them.  Now they are stuck in a situation where they need to maintain value for people who converted, which means they can't do what they should have done in the first place.  I suspect they thought a much larger percentage of people would convert - and I also suspect many more of us would have, if it hadn't been so costly.  I doubt many of us would have griped if they had simply changed everybody over without a fee.  Except for allowing shorter or longer stays, the resorts didn't really need to be involved.

Edited to add - I think there is a fundamental difference between owners and exchangers when it comes to point allocation.  Owners at a beach resort own at the beach because they want to be on the beach.  Those same owners, if they exchange, try to get into other beach resorts.  But people who exchange to a different area each year want something different.  If they're visiting a different city/area each year, they probably want to experience what the locale has to offer, not just sit on the beach.  Those exchangers may be more interested in a more upscale resort (such as BIS Kitty Hawk), even if they are slightly off the beach.  I liken it to people who want to be near Disney, but don't feel the need (and maybe don't even want) to be on Disney property, whatever the price.


----------



## AFARR

Mel said:


> Snip...
> I think this change is what RCI should have done when they went to points - convert everybody to the new system, and not charge for conversions.  Snip...



I figured Points was not only for RCI's benefit, but the "conversion" charge that the resort would charge ($3k...and RCI only charged <$300 of that) was to benefit the sold out resorts that wanted to still collect more money (for basically doing nothing)...to me, that was collusion between RCI and the resort developer...

AFARR


----------



## Carolinian

My information on demand is from the local timeshare specialist in rental / resale.  The demand on the rental market for BIS-Kitty Hawk is so bad, they say it simply will not rent, even if priced cheaper, if there is ANYTHING at ANY beachfront resort availible.  Second worst on the rental demand side is Seascape, also because of distance to the beach.  Among beachfront resorts, Outer Banks Beach Club I and II have always had the biggest demand, and until the last few years were head and shoulders above every other beachfront resort.  Lately however, BIS-Duck has moved into a very clear second place to OBBC.

Just watching availibility on the exchange market, it appears to largely mirror the rental market.

If you are buying to trade, I would suggest OBBC, not only for the demand situation, but also because it is dual affiliated with II, and because it is GC on one of its components and SC on the other.  It also has a good management company and solid hands-on HOA boards.

BIS-Duck has long suffered from developer management that clearly favored BIS-Kitty Hawk as it was still in sales.  On renovation, it is a very mixed bag.  Those units that have been renovated are quite nice but some that haven't are quite tired.  Now that they have finally gotten clear of developer management, I expect things will improve.  That is a big milestone for them.

Dunes South once had a somewhat similar problem of management that had the HOA board under its thumb and declining standards.  Even their handpicked HOA board finally woke up to management's shortcomings, gave them the heave-ho, and brought in new management that is really moving forward.  Again, there has been a big difference at Dunes South whether you were in one of the renovated units or one of those unrenovated.  Under old management, units only got renovated when they had hurricane damage, a lightning strike, fire, or the like.  New management is giving attention all the way round to bring the resort up to standards.





AFARR said:


> A couple of thoughts on that.   Background first...I lived in Richmond, VA for years and went to the OBX at least once a year (for about 5 of those years).  We toured BIS Duck (and almost bought a Blue week there...rescinded at the last minute...glad we did!) about 15 years ago (wife was preggo with the first kid at the time, so it's about that time).   We toured BIS Kitty Hawk once also.  I'm a newbie (looking at getting another week or two on the OBX at some point in the future, so I'm trying to keep an eye on the weeks and points that crop up).
> 
> #1.  There seem to be some poor reviews on Duck, especially on RCI (2.7 Stars vs. 3.8 for Kitty Hawk).   It does seem like the comments are justified (from looking a other boards)...even 15 years ago, there was some weathering on the outside of the buildings in Duck.    I think someone on here mentioned that KH was a Silver Crown now*****(Edited, RCI has the 4 little guy symbol instead of a silver crown...doesn't that mean it's dropped even further?), Duck is unrated.
> 
> #2.  RCI Points, High Prime weeks (24-32).   3Br Lockoff  BIS KH: 95,500   Duck: 87,500   2 BR Lockoff KH: 86,000   Duck: 73,500.   (As an FYI...there was a points week at Outer Banks Beach Club II on Ebay...OBBC II isn't a "points" resort, but per the management...some people were able to convert a while back and still hold them as points weeks....Wk 19, 2 Br was 69k points, vs. 37K points for the same week at BIS Kitty Hawk).
> 
> #3.  Duck...if I recall correctly, BIS Duck is a fairly large place (from the road running by the sound to the ocean)...if you figure the distance to the beach from the farthest building...I thought it was pretty close to the same distance from BIS Kitty Hawk to their private beach parking.   I wasn't wild about the overall location for KH (compared to Duck), but it wasn't horrible either...Duck has a better location (in my opinion), however it is much farther from a lot of the things to do down in the rest of the OBX.
> 
> I agree that RCI and the Developer are probably (to some extent) colluding to increase the points (either bumping up the rating on the resort, or falsely elevating the points while still in development status), but some of the difference can be explained by other factors (age of the resort, comments, etc.).
> 
> I don't have points...so I don't know if the 10 to 15% difference I gave above is that significant---maybe it is much more than I understand.
> 
> As a new owner (one red week, Outer Banks Beach Club II)...I'd like to see some way to "value" my week vs other things I could trade for (I intend to use it fairly frequently rather than trade...but it's nice to have options)..and I'd like to see the Resort working hard to increase the trade value (with a firm, documented base value, the HOA could put more pressure on the resort management to increase the value.
> 
> AFARR


----------



## Carolinian

The local folks who handle timeshare rentals and resales for a living do not seem to find many with those preferences.  They say it is virtually impossible to rent a BIS-Kitty Hawk timeshare unless all of the resorts on the beach are taken.  It is by far the lowest demand resort on the OBX.  Most folks who go to the beach do not want to have to drive to the beach as you do at BIS-Kitty Hawk.




Mel said:


> I think the difference between the BIS resorts is similar to the differences between the different parts of Orange Lake.  Not everyone agrees with the points differential, but there may be a real basis.
> 
> I have stayed at BIS Kitty Hawk twice, and enjoyed both visits.  I also stayed at SeaScape, further down the road, though that was during Christmas week, so the beach didn't matter as much.  For the weeks when we stayed at Kitty Hawk, I would not have preferred to stay in Duck.  Why?  Because the KH units are nicer, and that complex is closer to the rest of the local activities.  Yes, there are plenty of people who care about being on the beach, rather than near it, but there are also many who want that little bit of luxury when on vacation, and don't care to be on the beach.  If you're on the beach, you have to contend with all the other people "on the beach."  If the beach is nearby, you can visit the beach when you want, and spend some time in seclusion when you don't.
> 
> The same applies at Orange Lake.  River Island is great to visit, but even if it cost less the stay there then the West Village, I wouldn't do it.  I like West Village better - because of the relative seclusion.  I have access to River Island when I want, but if I was staying there, I would be stuck in the middle of it all week.
> 
> I think this change is what RCI should have done when they went to points - convert everybody to the new system, and not charge for conversions.  If some resorts want to deal with split-week usage, let them, but don't demand it of them.  Now they are stuck in a situation where they need to maintain value for people who converted, which means they can't do what they should have done in the first place.  I suspect they thought a much larger percentage of people would convert - and I also suspect many more of us would have, if it hadn't been so costly.  I doubt many of us would have griped if they had simply changed everybody over without a fee.  Except for allowing shorter or longer stays, the resorts didn't really need to be involved.
> 
> Edited to add - I think there is a fundamental difference between owners and exchangers when it comes to point allocation.  Owners at a beach resort own at the beach because they want to be on the beach.  Those same owners, if they exchange, try to get into other beach resorts.  But people who exchange to a different area each year want something different.  If they're visiting a different city/area each year, they probably want to experience what the locale has to offer, not just sit on the beach.  Those exchangers may be more interested in a more upscale resort (such as BIS Kitty Hawk), even if they are slightly off the beach.  I liken it to people who want to be near Disney, but don't feel the need (and maybe don't even want) to be on Disney property, whatever the price.


----------



## Carolinian

If RCI did not give value to all of those excess weeks in overbuilt areas by doing trades for some of these off season weeks to give weeks in the overbuilt areas some value, then those, too, would be worthless.

Actually, there are some resorts which I wonder if they have any demand even in ''high'' season, and one on a small manmade lake with a history of water quality problems (Lake Royale) 45 minutes outside Raleigh is a good example.  I think if someone gave me free use of any week during the year at that ''resort'', I would say ''no thanks''.  An honest rating should have all of their weeks as blue.





timeos2 said:


> This is exactly right. RCI decided to give value to a use week that really had no value, as measured in rent vs annual fee one of the few absolute measures of value in an open market, but they had NO obligation whatsoever to do that. When it no longer made any sense they ended it. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the resort/owners to squeeze value out of those weeks OR simply absorb them into the general pool as dead time and charge all other weeks to cover those costs.  It is not an RCI problem or responsibility but if they choose to help create a value that is a plus - never a promise. Owners were lucky when they did it but have no right or guarantee that will happen or continue indefinitely.
> 
> Placing responsibility for creating value on an independent third party is very risky as they can and will end that if it no longer makes financial sense to them. Only the resort/owners have the vested interest needed to find a permanent answer to the situation. That answer may change over time but will always be the responsibility of the resort/owners.


----------



## timeos2

*People do care about different things and they all carry a value*



Mel said:


> I think the difference between the BIS resorts is similar to the differences between the different parts of Orange Lake.  Not everyone agrees with the points differential, but there may be a real basis.
> 
> I have stayed at BIS Kitty Hawk twice, and enjoyed both visits.  I also stayed at SeaScape, further down the road, though that was during Christmas week, so the beach didn't matter as much.  For the weeks when we stayed at Kitty Hawk, I would not have preferred to stay in Duck.  Why?  Because the KH units are nicer, and that complex is closer to the rest of the local activities.  Yes, there are plenty of people who care about being on the beach, rather than near it, but there are also many who want that little bit of luxury when on vacation, and don't care to be on the beach.  If you're on the beach, you have to contend with all the other people "on the beach."  If the beach is nearby, you can visit the beach when you want, and spend some time in seclusion when you don't.
> 
> The same applies at Orange Lake.  River Island is great to visit, but even if it cost less the stay there then the West Village, I wouldn't do it.  I like West Village better - because of the relative seclusion.  I have access to River Island when I want, but if I was staying there, I would be stuck in the middle of it all week.
> 
> I think this change is what RCI should have done when they went to points - convert everybody to the new system, and not charge for conversions.  If some resorts want to deal with split-week usage, let them, but don't demand it of them.  Now they are stuck in a situation where they need to maintain value for people who converted, which means they can't do what they should have done in the first place.  I suspect they thought a much larger percentage of people would convert - and I also suspect many more of us would have, if it hadn't been so costly.  I doubt many of us would have griped if they had simply changed everybody over without a fee.  Except for allowing shorter or longer stays, the resorts didn't really need to be involved.
> 
> Edited to add - I think there is a fundamental difference between owners and exchangers when it comes to point allocation.  Owners at a beach resort own at the beach because they want to be on the beach.  Those same owners, if they exchange, try to get into other beach resorts.  But people who exchange to a different area each year want something different.  If they're visiting a different city/area each year, they probably want to experience what the locale has to offer, not just sit on the beach.  Those exchangers may be more interested in a more upscale resort (such as BIS Kitty Hawk), even if they are slightly off the beach.  I liken it to people who want to be near Disney, but don't feel the need (and maybe don't even want) to be on Disney property, whatever the price.



Great and very accurate post. Not every traveler has the same desires. Naturally everyone thinks they know exactly what is best and in demand - and they are right for those that think exactly as they do - but they ignore the mass of people who are different and thus miss the reason(s) that values might not 100% reflect their bias and beliefs. Some go so far as to call those differences "fraudulent" or "fixed" but in reality they are based on actual demand rather than "the way I see it".  You'll never convince those that have an extremely rose colored and/or limited view of the situation as they only see what they believe and allow for no other possibilities.


----------



## AFARR

Carolinian said:


> Snip....
> 
> BIS-Duck has long suffered from developer management that clearly favored BIS-Kitty Hawk as it was still in sales.  On renovation, it is a very mixed bag.  Those units that have been renovated are quite nice but some that haven't are quite tired.  Now that they have finally gotten clear of developer management, I expect things will improve.  That is a big milestone for them.
> 
> Snip....



I own OBBC II (Wk 37), so I'm fairly happy with what I got (Despite not having used it yet).    

BIS Duck just went to SPM Resorts for management (this year)...the same people who manage OBBC I and II.   Hopefully a change for the better.

I did talk to BIS Duck (member services) to ask some questions....
the young lady I talked to made some good points....a lot of the complaints at the beach come from people who had the bad fortune to be there when the weather was terrible during their week...she said they have 3 or 4x as many complaints (maintenance, etc.) during rainy weather than during good weather.    So, newer resorts (with fewer old maintenance issues) generally get less complaints...

I would tend to agree somewhat that you want to be ON the beach at a beach resort...and BIS Kitty Hawk and Sea Scape aren't.   I've stayed in SS before...it's a nice resort--a bit basic (someone said they have a new club house), but not a bad place to stay at the beach...but it's not directly on the beach (I'm much more of a fisherman than a beach lounger, so it doesn't matter to me).    BIS KH is probably not a bad resort...and as you mentioned, it might be due to the location/proximity to the beach rather than the resort itself.

AFARR


----------



## AFARR

Carolinian,

Thanks again for the info...it's very helpful to me (since I'm looking at getting another week), so I don't want to come across as ungrateful...I look at several sources of info and try to make an informed decision before I buy (which I did on the OBBC II purchase...I got it on Ebay before I found TUG, but I don't think it was a bad purchase either).

One thought on the local rental agents...they are more likely to deal with people who want "On The Beach" for their rental (and often premium rental rental rates)..vs people who want a deal (lower rates) and are willing to be off the beach a bit (BIS KH has their own beach parking...looks like about 25 yards from the beach road...and is about 700 yards from their back gate to the beach...looking at mapquest).   

Edited: Lest we get too far off the RCI 'value' topic...my point above being that there are several reasons for 'value' (be it points or 'trading credits')...and not being close to the beach may or may not make a difference to someone trading through RCI vs. renting locally.   Someone calling a local rental agent who quotes $1600 for a 2 BR for the summer week would probably get upset if they weren't on the beach for that $$, vs someone who pays $600 MFs for their week, $160 to trade through RCI and gets Sea Scape or BIS Kitty Hawk may not be as concerned.   

AFARR


----------



## rickandcindy23

I grow tired of the bashing of Colorado resorts on TUG.  RCI devalued Colorado on 5/31/2009, including prime ski and summer.  I consider owners at the Colorado resorts as victims of RCI's recent downgrade.  Being on the board at two Colorado resorts, I know how full they are during summer and winter, yet people here will say things like, "Colorado only has one red season, and that is winter."  That's a bunch of hooey.  The mountains in summer is prime time.  What makes RCI think it isn't, when the resorts are packed full in summer?   

The same goes for North Carolina mountains.  Summer is prime.  Why aren't these weeks being treated as such?  North Carolina summer now trades much worse than Colorado summer. 

II will not take Val Chatelle because there are only six units.  If we had more units, they would take us.  So we have notified all owners of the alternatives, but II cannot be one of them.  When have you ever heard of a company denying possible customers?  It's strange.


----------



## timeos2

*The reality - there are seasonal and year round places. You can't ignore that*



AFARR said:


> Edited: Lest we get too far off the RCI 'value' topic...my point above being that there are several reasons for 'value' (be it points or 'trading credits')...and not being close to the beach may or may not make a difference to someone trading through RCI vs. renting locally.   Someone calling a local rental agent who quotes $1600 for a 2 BR for the summer week would probably get upset if they weren't on the beach for that $$, vs someone who pays $600 MFs for their week, $160 to trade through RCI and gets Sea Scape or BIS Kitty Hawk may not be as concerned.
> 
> AFARR



The other factor continuously ignored by some is the fact that people looking for an activity and destination based vacation that involves, say, theme parks or gambling or whatever do not care or want a beach location. There is plenty of demand - year round, not just a few select summer weeks - for those areas and, surprise, they get the most attention from developers thanks to nearly year round good weather, year round demand and year round desire for resort features that may not matter to a seasonal, beach side resort but are critical to the desirability (and therefore value) of resorts located to service those areas.  To say an occasional fisherman or visitor that desires a quiet, off week seaside when beach use is unthinkable creates demand that exceeds that for an upscale resort in a destination area is ludicrous. Trying to say the value of those two weeks - both "off season" perhaps but far from equal in desirability/demand - is somehow equal is also ridiculous.  Clearly the better weather, year round attraction will have greater value even if the supply overall comes closer to demand than the seasonal area. Those seasonal weeks can't be given away at any price as shown by the fact that rentals/hotels in those areas shut down during those times. When was the last time you saw a seasonal shutdown of an Orlando hotel or one in Vegas? Doesn't happen as even the slowest period has enough demand to keep the doors open unlike those extremely slow periods at highly weather dependent areas. 

So my Orlando timeshare enjoys a year round demand/ value I can't expect to see at my Cape Cod one. The Cape struggles with off season times yet, with creative efforts, can find a market for enough use to help carry the resort over those slow times. Not an issue in Orlando - the demand is there each and every week - thus the average value there is lower than the 8-10 prime weeks at the Cape, but far above the 40+ weeks when getting demand up can be problematic for that far more seasonal area.  It is up to the exchange system to balance those things and thats what the credit / points attempts to do. If it's right it's to every ones benefit - including RCI's - so I ave to assume they will do the best they can to ensure it is reasonable. Pandering to a beach front resort, a Theme Park Resort, a Gambling Resort or a developer/group won't result in use by the informed membership and thus isn't something they would want to do.  Those who own at a specific resort or area will almost always feel they got shortchanged. It's human nature.


----------



## AFARR

rickandcindy23 said:


> I grow tired of the bashing of Colorado resorts on TUG.  RCI devalued Colorado on 5/31/2009, including prime ski and summer.  I consider owners at the Colorado resorts as victims of RCI's recent downgrade.  Being on the board at two Colorado resorts, I know how full they are during summer and winter, yet people here will say things like, "Colorado only has one red season, and that is winter."  That's a bunch of hooey.  The mountains in summer is prime time.  What makes RCI think it isn't, when the resorts are packed full in summer?
> Snip....



R&C,

Are the resorts full because people want to go there in the summer (vs. Ski season), or because it's an excellent deal (much lower rent or easier to trade into with blue weeks from elsewhere)?   I'm not a Skier so I probably wouldn't be interested in prime winter, but if I needed a place to get away and was looking for a trade, I'd consider it during the summer just to relax.

I think the value issue (lest we get lost again) isn't necessarily "the resort is full", but "why is the resort full"..and if there's a big "couldn't get into the resort" list of people....that takes the "demand" part of the supply/demand issue into play.   A resort (area) has 100 spots and 100 people want it that week...that's 100% full + 100% demand....a resort has 100 spots and 500 people want it...that's still 100% full, but the demand is 500%.  

AFARR


----------



## AFARR

timeos2 said:


> The other factor continuously ignored by some is the fact that people looking for an activity and destination based vacation that involves, say, theme parks or gambling or whatever do not care or want a beach location. There is plenty of demand - year round, not just a few select summer weeks - for those areas and, surprise, they get the most attention from developers thanks to nearly year round good weather, year round demand and year round desire for resort features that may not matter to a seasonal, beach side resort but are critical to the desirability (and therefore value) of resorts located to service those areas.  To say an occasional fisherman or visitor that desires a quiet, off week seaside when beach use is unthinkable creates demand that exceeds that for an upscale resort in a destination area is ludicrous. Trying to say the value of those two weeks - both "off season" perhaps but far from equal in desirability/demand - is somehow equal is also ridiculous.  Clearly the better weather, year round attraction will have greater value even if the supply overall comes closer to demand than the seasonal area. Those seasonal weeks can't be given away at any price as shown by the fact that rentals/hotels in those areas shut down during those times. When was the last time you saw a seasonal shutdown of an Orlando hotel or one in Vegas? Doesn't happen as even the slowest period has enough demand to keep the doors open unlike those extremely slow periods at highly weather dependent areas.
> 
> So my Orlando timeshare enjoys a year round demand/ value I can't expect to see at my Cape Cod one. The Cape struggles with off season times yet, with creative efforts, can find a market for enough use to help carry the resort over those slow times. Not an issue in Orlando - the demand is there each and every week - thus the average value there is lower than the 8-10 prime weeks at the Cape, but far above the 40+ weeks when getting demand up can be problematic for that far more seasonal area.  It is up to the exchange system to balance those things and thats what the credit / points attempts to do. If it's right it's to every ones benefit - including RCI's - so I ave to assume they will do the best they can to ensure it is reasonable. Pandering to a beach front resort, a Theme Park Resort, a Gambling Resort or a developer/group won't result in use by the informed membership and thus isn't something they would want to do.  Those who own at a specific resort or area will almost always feel they got shortchanged. It's human nature.



Timeos,

You kind of lost me on that...I wasn't TRYING to say that an off season (say mid-Atlantic) beach week was the same as an Orlando off season week...I was trying to make the point that (specifically) BIS Kitty Hawk wasn't necessarily a bad trade for someone (who has $760 invested in their week and exchange fee)...but someone who had to pay $1600+ in rental fees would probably want to be next to the beach and be disappointed....

Orlando (due to the attractions) is all red season---RCI lists 88 resorts in the area, and their red season is Jan 1-Dec. 31.   The OBX has 13 resorts (most are significantly smaller than the Orlando area resorts) and has a Mid April-Mid October Red Season.   The "center prime" season...i.e. highest point value for the Florida (whatever first cropped up on the Orlando area in an RCI points resort) is roughly weeks 25 to 33 (vs 26 to 32 for OBX), but the point values for "out of prime" Orlando are only 60% of the highest prime points....in the OBX, they are less than 30% (blue week vs. highest red week).   So, RCI does take that into account, and in a trading credit system, that would have to be taken into account also.   With only 13 resorts (and being in easy driving distance of NYC, Phila, Baltimore, D.C, etc.)..the supply/demand for the OBX during those prime summer weeks (26 to 32) is different than most of the Orlando area....so that also has to be taken into account.

AFARR


----------



## Carolinian

From what I have seen of actual deposits at a resort where I was on the board, the behavior you describe does not happen.  Many exchangers pay early to deposit long before the bills come due.  There is a slight bump during the billing period but not that massive.  This resort billed once a year.  Some other resorts in the area billed four times a year depending on when peoples use week occurred.

The reality is that things change.  After Katrina, for example, I am certain that New Orleans would have had a lot more supply and a lot less demand than before Katrina.  Values have to change with them if they are going to be fair and objective.





"Roger" said:


> I seriously doubt that a transparent dynamic system would be very popular.  When maintenence fees are due at a resort a bunch of people will pay and deposit all at once.  The person who was just a day too slow discovers that while fellow owners received a "28" for their deposits of a two bedroom unit just yesterday, she is only being offered a "17."  ("Sorry, supply is up. A lot of owners paid their maintenence fees recently and deposited so that supply now well outstrips current demand.  Thus, in accordance with the rules of dynamic supply and demand, we now consider your unit to be a below average deposit. Perhaps if you wait a couple of months, things will be better for you.")
> 
> Meanwhile, on TUG, instead of the occassional post about when is the best time to buy a plane ticket to Hawaii, the boards would be inundated with posts like "When is the best time to deposit my two bedroom such and such in order to get a higher trade number?"  or "I can get such and such a unit for '28' units now.  Do you think I should take it or do you think the price will be lower in September?"
> 
> Add to that, people will be holding off their deposits because they don't see the units that they want to trade for at the moment.  Not having deposited, their desire for such and such resort will not be measured because currently there is no official "demand" for the resort because people have not deposited to ask for it.
> 
> People HATE the way airline prices go up and down.  They would hate a transparent dynamic supply and demand system in timesharing as much (or, in all likelihood, even more).
> 
> ***********************
> 
> IMAGINARY DIALOGUE
> 
> Owner:  I just saw on TUG where someone got a "31" for depositing a two bedroom week at my resort.  That is a good number, much better than I got for the same type of deposit last year.  I would like to deposit my unit now.
> RCI rep:  I am sorry, ma'am, but I can only give you a "21" for your unit today.
> Owner: How can that be?  I saw on the internet that people were getting a "31"  for EXACTLY what I have.
> RCI:  That was yesterday, but we had a bulk spacebank yesterday so now we have a great supply relative to current demand.
> Owner:  Bulk spacebank?
> RCI rep:  Yes, the developer of your resort keeps a very close eye on what units are bringing in.  At 11:32 last night, he deposited a slew of unsold units in order to get the maximum amount of trading power for them.  That helps him with sales.
> Owner:  Oh, I see.  That sounds so fair.  I really like the dynamic use of supply and demand - it is just like the stock market.  It ensures that I get the true value of my unit - nothing more, nothing less. (NOT!)
> 
> ==================
> 
> People want to know the value of their unit based upon historical data.  They do not want to see timesharing become like playing the  commodities market (the most  dynamic and thus the most volutable of the markets).


----------



## Egret1986

*Sorry, I don't think that's true from personal experience*



Carolinian said:


> Late March is spring break on the OBX and the resorts tend to be full.
> 
> The problem with getting good exchanges is primarily RCI raiding the spacebank in order to rent to the general public.



"Full" is really stretching it big time.  If they "tend to be full", then I don't know where everyone is when I've been down there during March.  It's a nice time to be down there because it's quiet and uncrowded.  

If resorts were "full" or even close to that, then it wouldn't be a problem renting one's time out.  I knew I could never rent that week out for even close to what my maintenance fee was and knew that it was time to unload the week.  I now have summer weeks on the Outer Banks.  Will I deposit them with RCI?  No.  Why?  Because I can rent these weeks out for way more than maintenance fees or use these weeks for low cost vacations.

I hope RCI is going to revamp the Weeks side.  But I do not believe RCI took value away from my Blue March week on the Outer Banks by "raiding" spacebanks for rentals.  It's just not a high demand time.  It's not a destination where people are scrambling to for Spring break.


----------



## bnoble

> I grow tired of the bashing of Colorado resorts on TUG.


I'm not.  You are taking my observation way too personally.  I'm observing that some weeks, at some resorts/areas, have so much more supply than demand that filling those weeks with renters requires setting a rental price lower than MFs cost.  It can happen anywhere where there is seasonal demand.  I own some summer weeks at a Wisconsin resort.  The summer weeks have value by this metric; they rent for more than MFs run.  The winter weeks, though, don't.  

This can even happen in Orlando some times of the year.  For example, mid-September and early January are hard sells.

Expecting to get more than "rental price" value for your deposit is asking RCI to create value where none exists.  They used to do that.  They don't anymore.


----------



## Carolinian

RCI did not give extra value.  What they did was take distressed short shelf life inventory, the 45 day window, which because it is short shelf life has an equal value, and did a fair and realistic trade for off season weeks.  Now, because they are renting that or diverting it to Points members, the trade value for off season Weeks members has dried up.

And if weeks outside the 45 day window can be snagged by off season weeks from Podunk, Iowa, guess what?  It means the supply / demand factors of the market say that those weeks are equivalent to the off season weeks.  This is not RCI putting its thumb on the scales and giving somebody something for nothing.  It is the market forces of supply and demand saying what is equivalent.

Now there are nice areas with lots of nice weather.  Vacationing in the Canary Islands or in Orlando can be fun every now and then, although I do not know that I would want to do either all the time.  However when timeshare developers overbuild, you can get too much of a good thing.  The problem in those areas is not on the demand side, but on the supply side.  The system is simply awash in supply.  And there are the low seasons, like, say, hurricane season.

RCI does have an incentive to make things work for its members.  Crystal deHaan knew that even if the Cendent / Wyndham crowd sometimes loses sight of it.  Those off season owners may membership fees and exchange fees.  Run them off, and you are running off a cash cow.  I am not in favor of significant trades up, except within a reasonable range, but a 45 day window exchange is NOT a trade up, and a trade that supply / demand factors say is equal is also NOT a trade up, regardless of what some resort owner may think.

RCI screwing the pooch on the 45 day window has already been an incentive for several resorts I am familiar with to target HOA resales toward non-exchange markets.  More monkeying with the system may cause that tendency to spread among HOA's.




timeos2 said:


> This is exactly right. RCI decided to give value to a use week that really had no value, as measured in rent vs annual fee one of the few absolute measures of value in an open market, but they had NO obligation whatsoever to do that. When it no longer made any sense they ended it. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the resort/owners to squeeze value out of those weeks OR simply absorb them into the general pool as dead time and charge all other weeks to cover those costs.  It is not an RCI problem or responsibility but if they choose to help create a value that is a plus - never a promise. Owners were lucky when they did it but have no right or guarantee that will happen or continue indefinitely.
> 
> Placing responsibility for creating value on an independent third party is very risky as they can and will end that if it no longer makes financial sense to them. Only the resort/owners have the vested interest needed to find a permanent answer to the situation. That answer may change over time but will always be the responsibility of the resort/owners.


----------



## Carolinian

bnoble said:


> I'm not.  You are taking my observation way too personally.  I'm observing that some weeks, at some resorts/areas, have so much more supply than demand that filling those weeks with renters requires setting a rental price lower than MFs cost.  It can happen anywhere where there is seasonal demand.  It can even happen in Orlando some times of the year.  For example, mid-September and early January are hard sells.
> 
> Expecting to get more than "rental price" value for your deposit is asking RCI to create value where none exists.  They used to do that.  They aren't anymore.



A good further example is Cindy renting in Orlando for way less than m/f.

Current rental prices are not a good indicator as RCI has artificially depressed the rental market by flooding it with rentals from exchange deposits.


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> From what I have seen of actual deposits at a resort where I was on the board, the behavior you describe does not happen.  Many exchangers pay early to deposit long before the bills come due.  There is a slight bump during the billing period but not that massive.  This resort billed once a year.  Some other resorts in the area billed four times a year depending on when peoples use week occurred.
> 
> The reality is that things change.  After Katrina, for example, I am certain that New Orleans would have had a lot more supply and a lot less demand than before Katrina.  Values have to change with them if they are going to be fair and objective.


... and what I have seen on this board ...  People having gotten low trading power after a space bank; people having gotten low trading power for depositing too early (and JLB, using his source at RCI, admitting that this will happen if people deposit before demand builds), etc.


----------



## "Roger"

We are getting way off track, but just a little data of interest ...

I just tried Googling "Disney World Rental Condo" and "OBX Rental Condo," chose one site at each (and I am sure that I will be accused of having chosen the wrong site) and then priced out a two bedroom, two bath condo on each site (the first one  listed that met this criteria).  The results ...

Disney World rates for the same condo ranged fro $903 to $1393 from low season to high season.

OBX rates for the same condo ranged from $625 to $1525 from low season to high season.

While Orlando is overbuilt as far as timesharers go, if you open it up to all comers (RCI does rent to outsiders), the off season is not all that bad.  There are many families visiting Orlando during all seasons who would never have enough money to afford a timeshare, but for their once in a lifetime visit with their kids would be willing to rent even during offseason. Maybe this will help explain why some of the resorts get a decent number of points during the offseason.


----------



## AFARR

"Roger" said:


> Snip...
> 
> While Orlando is overbuilt as far as timesharers go, if you open it up to all comers (RCI does rent to outsiders), the off season is not all that bad.  There are many families visiting Orlando during all seasons who would never have enough money to afford a timeshare, but for their once in a lifetime visit with their kids would be willing to rent even during offseason. Maybe this will help explain why some of the resorts get a decent number of points during the offseason.



The off season is definitely different both places. I've been to the OBX in November (still a nice place, but you wouldn't want to hang out on the beach much)...but the 'off season' in FL is still pretty nice and warm.

A lot of the "seasonality" of RCI is based on school vacations.   People with kids too young for school or post-school, or even people who want to vacation are much more likely to use some of the 'better bargain' weeks...even without being a TS owner, when my kids were young, we could pick up and go in early May, Late Sept, etc. and get better deals on hotels, etc.

AFARR


----------



## "Roger"

Trying to put this thread a little more on track, two areas of comment ...



timeos2 said:


> I have recently heard from two different RCI sources that, as part of the fallout from the ill-fated class action suit, the RCI Weeks system is going to undergo a major and unprecedented change.  The long secret trade value is coming out from the shadows and will be used front and center as the new means for facilitating trades.  ....


I was always surprised how people declared that the settlement resulted in nothing.  Amidst the conditions was the provision that RCI would reveal trading power.  That struck me as major (a bit of a timebomb).  Developers would no longer be able to overclaim the trading power of what they were going selling.  People would see the true worth of their units and have more realistic expectations.  [I probably shouldn't add this, but ... Also, we would no longer have to hear the constant criticism of point values _together with _the claim that the secret values were absolutely perfect. Ha!]



Mel said:


> ...
> I think this change is what RCI should have done when they went to points - convert everybody to the new system, and not charge for conversions.


This is the part that most intrigues me.  I agree with Mel that it would have been better to just make a clean conversion to the new system.  But that did not happen so what happens now to Points owners and Point resort developers?  While some are in Points for the 9000 point last minute trades, most people were interested in the flexibility provided by the system - take a one bedrooms when acceptable, two bedrooms when needed, the freedom to go to a non-prime area without the feeling you are losing the value of your unit, take a pink week so one could have points left over to trade for another unit, save up for a three bedroom summer England unit (did that), etc.  

If the Weeks program will now have these same advantages, what is left to justify the conversion cost to Points?  I doubt that many people would have pay (have paid) for the high costs being charged for conversion just so that they could occassionally take a partial week.  What (if anything) will RCI offer to the existing Points owners and Point resort developers?

[Note:  I am not worried for my own sake.  I have often noted that I was able to recoup the cost of my own conversion within about two and a half years.  The rest has been gravy (not to mention the mental piece of mind of having gotten out of one of the dirtiest enterprises that I am aware of).]


----------



## Jennie

[QUOTE="Roger" "I was always surprised how people declared that the settlement resulted in nothing.  Amidst the conditions was the provision that RCI would reveal trading power.  That struck me as major (a bit of a timebomb).  Developers would no longer be able to overclaim the trading power of what they were going selling.  People would see the true worth of their units and have more realistic expectations."

Those of us who took an active role in objecting in Federal Court to the original terms of the proposed RCI settlement, emphasized the necessity for honesty and transparency during the sales process so that people would not be grossly mislead about the exchange value of the week that a slick sales person was trying to sell them.


----------



## Jennie

In choosing one of the claim settlement options available to class members in the RCI lawsuit, I applied for the one that will reveal the trade power and current availability of a specific exchange I desire, before I deposit my week.  

Since RCI obviously has the data and ability to convey this type of valuable information, it behooves them to make it a routine offering to all members, upon request. 

In almost every area of life, people expect to be informed of the price, availability, and delivery time  of something they are contemplating acquiring, before committing to engage in the transaction.


----------



## Carolinian

From my personal experience with a mid-OBX timeshare, our resort as well as the others in that immediate area were generally full from mid-March through Thanksgiving, and had pretty good occupancy from mid-February.

Although, I have been on the other side of the pond for almost three years now, I visited the OBX the second weekend of March this year on a trip back to the states and stopped by to see the resort manager at the timeshare where I had served on the board.  She commented that the week starting that Saturday would be the first week since she started in January that the resort would be full, but that all the upcoming weeks were full.  I could also ask my North Carolina neighbor across the street, as she owns to use that same week and I know she was going down for the week because I had seen and talked with her that Friday.





Egret1986 said:


> "Full" is really stretching it big time.  If they "tend to be full", then I don't know where everyone is when I've been down there during March.  It's a nice time to be down there because it's quiet and uncrowded.
> 
> If resorts were "full" or even close to that, then it wouldn't be a problem renting one's time out.  I knew I could never rent that week out for even close to what my maintenance fee was and knew that it was time to unload the week.  I now have summer weeks on the Outer Banks.  Will I deposit them with RCI?  No.  Why?  Because I can rent these weeks out for way more than maintenance fees or use these weeks for low cost vacations.
> 
> I hope RCI is going to revamp the Weeks side.  But I do not believe RCI took value away from my Blue March week on the Outer Banks by "raiding" spacebanks for rentals.  It's just not a high demand time.  It's not a destination where people are scrambling to for Spring break.


----------



## rickandcindy23

bnoble said:


> I'm not.  You are taking my observation way too personally.  I'm observing that some weeks, at some resorts/areas, have so much more supply than demand that filling those weeks with renters requires setting a rental price lower than MFs cost.  It can happen anywhere where there is seasonal demand.  I own some summer weeks at a Wisconsin resort.  The summer weeks have value by this metric; they rent for more than MFs run.  The winter weeks, though, don't.
> 
> This can even happen in Orlando some times of the year.  For example, mid-September and early January are hard sells.
> 
> Expecting to get more than "rental price" value for your deposit is asking RCI to create value where none exists.  They used to do that.  They don't anymore.



This isn't about my blue week, it's about others, not you, who say Colorado has only one red season.  This wasn't against your posts at all.  The Colorado Rockies in the summer is a great place to be.


----------



## Carolinian

Jennie said:


> [QUOTE="Roger" "I was always surprised how people declared that the settlement resulted in nothing.  Amidst the conditions was the provision that RCI would reveal trading power.  That struck me as major (a bit of a timebomb).  Developers would no longer be able to overclaim the trading power of what they were going selling.  People would see the true worth of their units and have more realistic expectations."
> 
> Those of us who took an active role in objecting in Federal Court to the original terms of the proposed RCI settlement, emphasized the necessity for honesty and transparency during the sales process so that people would not be grossly mislead about the exchange value of the week that a slick sales person was trying to sell them.



Honesty and transparency in the sales process would also include requiring RCI to reveal their rental activities of spacebank deposits to prospective buyers, some of whom would be better off just renting from RCI or its outlets.  But that is a matter for extending the disclosure requirements on timeshare sales already contained in state law.


----------



## Carolinian

But you can rent either one from RCI for under $300 in low season.




"Roger" said:


> We are getting way off track, but just a little data of interest ...
> 
> I just tried Googling "Disney World Rental Condo" and "OBX Rental Condo," chose one site at each (and I am sure that I will be accused of having chosen the wrong site) and then priced out a two bedroom, two bath condo on each site (the first one  listed that met this criteria).  The results ...
> 
> Disney World rates for the same condo ranged fro $903 to $1393 from low season to high season.
> 
> OBX rates for the same condo ranged from $625 to $1525 from low season to high season.
> 
> While Orlando is overbuilt as far as timesharers go, if you open it up to all comers (RCI does rent to outsiders), the off season is not all that bad.  There are many families visiting Orlando during all seasons who would never have enough money to afford a timeshare, but for their once in a lifetime visit with their kids would be willing to rent even during offseason. Maybe this will help explain why some of the resorts get a decent number of points during the offseason.


----------



## bnoble

> it's about others, not you,


Gotcha.  My mistake.  Sorry about that!


----------



## Elan

"Roger" said:


> I seriously doubt that a transparent dynamic system would be very popular.  When maintenence fees are due at a resort a bunch of people will pay and deposit all at once.  The person who was just a day too slow discovers that while fellow owners received a "28" for their deposits of a two bedroom unit just yesterday, she is only being offered a "17."  ("Sorry, supply is up. A lot of owners paid their maintenence fees recently and deposited so that supply now well outstrips current demand.  Thus, in accordance with the rules of dynamic supply and demand, we now consider your unit to be a below average deposit. Perhaps if you wait a couple of months, things will be better for you.")
> 
> Meanwhile, on TUG, instead of the occassional post about when is the best time to buy a plane ticket to Hawaii, the boards would be inundated with posts like "When is the best time to deposit my two bedroom such and such in order to get a higher trade number?"  or "I can get such and such a unit for '28' units now.  Do you think I should take it or do you think the price will be lower in September?"
> 
> Add to that, people will be holding off their deposits because they don't see the units that they want to trade for at the moment.  Not having deposited, their desire for such and such resort will not be measured because currently there is no official "demand" for the resort because people have not deposited to ask for it.
> 
> People HATE the way airline prices go up and down.  They would hate a transparent dynamic supply and demand system in timesharing as much (or, in all likelihood, even more).
> 
> ***********************
> 
> IMAGINARY DIALOGUE
> 
> Owner:  I just saw on TUG where someone got a "31" for depositing a two bedroom week at my resort.  That is a good number, much better than I got for the same type of deposit last year.  I would like to deposit my unit now.
> RCI rep:  I am sorry, ma'am, but I can only give you a "21" for your unit today.
> Owner: How can that be?  I saw on the internet that people were getting a "31"  for EXACTLY what I have.
> RCI:  That was yesterday, but we had a bulk spacebank yesterday so now we have a great supply relative to current demand.
> Owner:  Bulk spacebank?
> RCI rep:  Yes, the developer of your resort keeps a very close eye on what units are bringing in.  At 11:32 last night, he deposited a slew of unsold units in order to get the maximum amount of trading power for them.  That helps him with sales.
> Owner:  Oh, I see.  That sounds so fair.  I really like the dynamic use of supply and demand - it is just like the stock market.  It ensures that I get the true value of my unit - nothing more, nothing less. (NOT!)
> 
> ==================
> 
> People want to know the value of their unit based upon historical data.  They do not want to see timesharing become like playing the  commodities market (the most  dynamic and thus the most volutable of the markets).



  I agree completely.  The only things that should really matter for trade value is historical occupancy rate and time to usage.  Citing one time natural disasters as an argument for dynamic values is quite a stretch.  

  The one question that lingers for me is how occupancy rate would be determined.  Lots of variables to consider there.....


----------



## AFARR

*Elan*

I think I mentioned in an above post...(as I mentioned before, I'm a newbie, so I'm still learning the ropes)...there is a difference between occupancy and demand...

If you have 100 rooms to rent/exchange at a resort (applies equally to a resort area like Orlando, OBX, Canary Islands, Hilton Head, etc. etc with larger numbers of resorts), and 100 people put in requests for that time period, you have 100% occupancy and 100% demand, but if you have 100 rooms to rent and 500 people put in requests, then you still have 100% occupancy but 500% demand.   Have 100 rooms to rent/exchange and only 50 people request them, you have 50% occupancy and 50% demand...but if you drop the price on the rental/exchange to 25% of normal rental as a "last minute deal".....then you might get more takers and get up to 100% occupancy.

Different demand in each case, still 100% occupancy.    So, they do need to factor things like actual demand into valuation.    I've only been here for a short time, but from reading some posts there are a few resorts that people brag about getting into in a trade (along the lines of "I GOT xxx!!"), and some that seem like everyone can get there (or in that area...Orlando is frequently mentioned.).

Thanks!

AFARR


----------



## Jennie

AFARR said:


> I think I mentioned in an above post...(as I mentioned before, I'm a newbie, so I'm still learning the ropes)...there is a difference between occupancy and demand...
> 
> If you have 100 rooms to rent/exchange at a resort (applies equally to a resort area like Orlando, OBX, Canary Islands, Hilton Head, etc. etc with larger numbers of resorts), and 100 people put in requests for that time period, you have 100% occupancy and 100% demand, but if you have 100 rooms to rent and 500 people put in requests, then you still have 100% occupancy but 500% demand.   Have 100 rooms to rent/exchange and only 50 people request them, you have 50% occupancy and 50% demand...but if you drop the price on the rental/exchange to 25% of normal rental as a "last minute deal".....then you might get more takers and get up to 100% occupancy.
> 
> Different demand in each case, still 100% occupancy.    So, they do need to factor things like actual demand into valuation.    I've only been here for a short time, but from reading some posts there are a few resorts that people brag about getting into in a trade (along the lines of "I GOT xxx!!"), and some that seem like everyone can get there (or in that area...Orlando is frequently mentioned.).
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> AFARR



One other major factor to consider is that because of RCI's escalating raiding of the spacebank, and renting the units to the public, many owners of very desirable weeks were no longer getting the equitable exchanges they were requesting and deserved. So they turned to renting their week on their own and using the proceeds to rent exactly what they wanted directly from other owners. It eliminates the uncertainty. They can then purchase airline tickets well in advance when fares are at their lowest rate. They can submit an early request for a popular week off from work. Or they can delay making vacation plans until closer to the date, eliminating the worry about unanticipated circumstances ruining a planned vacation. In addition they save the exchange fee that is approaching $200. plus the annual RCI membership fee, if they decide to cancel out or not renew. 

I gingerly entered into that mode years ago and now use it almost exclusively. Thus our very desirable weeks are no longer available for exchange because they are never deposited. And many RCI members no longer request these weeks because, based upon past negative experience, they are convinced that they are never going to get them anyhow. Redweek.com has approximately 1.5 million members who are looking for ways to bypass RCI's greed, arrogance, and incompetence.

Factors like this may well impact upon RCI's ability to accurately determine the true supply and demand statistics.


----------



## Carolinian

Elan said:


> I agree completely.  The only things that should really matter for trade value is historical occupancy rate and time to usage.  Citing one time natural disasters as an argument for dynamic values is quite a stretch.
> 
> The one question that lingers for me is how occupancy rate would be determined.  Lots of variables to consider there.....



But, it is not just natural disasters.  The rigidity of RCI Points makes it even unable to adapt to known changes.  For example Thanksgiving is a good week most places in and near the US, particularly relative to those weeks around it.  On the OBX, it is in the second highest tier of points values in RCI Points, for example.  However, in reality, Thanksgiving while mostly in week 47, sometimes falls in week 46.  The rigid, ossified RCI Points numbers ALWAYS give the Thanksgiving value to week 47, even when it falls during the low demand week after Thanksgiving.  While it gives them a gift they do not deserve, it simultaneously cheats week 46 owners of their Thanksgiving bump when their week is Thanksgiving.  That is NOT a flexible system, but on the contrary an unfairly rigid system. (BTW, I have never owned a week 46 or 47 but have traded into Thanksgiving week several times).

How this new system treats issue like Thanksgiving will be a real key as to whether it is fair or not.

And there are other things that impact a week's value that need adjusting for.  If your resort is close to a major international sporting event, for example, it would have far more value than in the normal year.  Even some lesser events can dramatically impact value.  For example, when the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers first flight was celebrated on the OBX in the middle of winter, the hotels were sold out, and timeshare rental values were high.  I friend of mine happened to own that week, one he bought and usually used to go duck hunting on the OBX, and rented it out instead, getting a better rental return than would be usual in high summer.  Unless the trade power of those weeks are adjusted, I think we know where every one of them will end up - right in RCI's rental pool.


----------



## logan115

Carolinian said:


> And there are other things that impact a week's value that need adjusting for.  If your resort is close to a major international sporting event, for example, it would have far more value than in the normal year.  Even some lesser events can dramatically impact value.  For example, when the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers first flight was celebrated on the OBX in the middle of winter, the hotels were sold out, and timeshare rental values were high.  I friend of mine happened to own that week, one he bought and usually used to go duck hunting on the OBX, and rented it out instead, getting a better rental return than would be usual in high summer.  Unless the trade power of those weeks are adjusted, I think we know where every one of them will end up - right in RCI's rental pool.



While I agree 100% with the quote above, I just don't see how it's possible to do so.  Can you imagine trying to have RCI (or anyone) come up with a points "adjustment" that captures all of these event-based premiums, especially one-offs like mentioned above ?  Would NY carry a higher point requirement when the Red Sox are in town, and vice versa.  Same for the timeshares located where the NASCAR or PGA circuit happens to be on a given week ?

I don't own any weeks (or points for that matter :hysterical: ) so I fully admit that I have very little comprehension of how/what RCI has done in the past or will do in the future, but I don't think that we'll ever have a perfect system given the dynamics involved, 80/20 maybe.  For whatever reason, I'm guessing that some resorts will be overvalued, and some will be undervalued, and the smart owners will still find a way to milk the system for all that they can.  As mentioned in earlier posts, over time I think these discrepancies start to go away (a bit) as supply/demand forces should eventually dicate the real value of a given resort/week.  Until that happens, some will get great trades and other will be on the wrong side and face disappointment.

Just my opinion, which along with $5 should get you a small cup of coffee at Starbucks  

Chris


----------



## Carolinian

logan115 said:


> While I agree 100% with the quote above, I just don't see how it's possible to do so.  Can you imagine trying to have RCI (or anyone) come up with a points "adjustment" that captures all of these event-based premiums, especially one-offs like mentioned above ?  Would NY carry a higher point requirement when the Red Sox are in town, and vice versa.  Same for the timeshares located where the NASCAR or PGA circuit happens to be on a given week ?
> 
> I don't own any weeks (or points for that matter :hysterical: ) so I fully admit that I have very little comprehension of how/what RCI has done in the past or will do in the future, but I don't think that we'll ever have a perfect system given the dynamics involved, 80/20 maybe.  For whatever reason, I'm guessing that some resorts will be overvalued, and some will be undervalued, and the smart owners will still find a way to milk the system for all that they can.  As mentioned in earlier posts, over time I think these discrepancies start to go away (a bit) as supply/demand forces should eventually dicate the real value of a given resort/week.  Until that happens, some will get great trades and other will be on the wrong side and face disappointment.
> 
> Just my opinion, which along with $5 should get you a small cup of coffee at Starbucks
> 
> Chris



The system would likely largely even itself out, if they kept working at it, instead of just throwing numbers out and freezing them as they largely have at RCI Points, and if they did not have their own agenda - renting weeks.  This conflict of interest is what makes any values system set by a secret process suspect, whether the results of that process are published or not.  In the old days the deHaan system worked because that conflict of interest was not there at RCI.  It came in when Cendent bought out deHahn and started milking the system for all it was worth.


----------



## Carolinian

*Another conflict of interest for RCI*

Not only does the potential for putting their thumb on the scales to help push their rental of spacebank deposits enterprise give RCI a huge conflict of interest in setting published exchange values, but there is another one that is just as large.  RCI is in joint ownership with a couple of large timeshare developers whose resorts would be subject to those numbers.  While an unpublished value system creates no incentive for cooking the books, a published one creates a huge incentive to do so.

Not only could resorts in common ownership with RCI have their numbers artificially inflated, but so could entire resort areas in which these resorts have a significant presence.

As I see it, RCI has two ways around these inherent conflicts of interest:
1) Hire an independent third party, perhaps a major accounting firm to handle setting values, or 
2) Be totally transparent on the method of setting values, including fully revealing the formula and all data behind it.

Under the old Crystal deHahn (founder and longtime owner of RCI) formula, RCI was an independent third party and had no conflict of interest.  It did not engage in the rental business and it did not own timeshare resorts or have common ownership with owners of timeshare resorts.

Both timeshare owners and timeshare resorts need to work with exchange companies that either have no inherent conflicts of interest or take steps to prevent those conflicts of interest from impacting the way their business is run.


----------



## logan115

timeos2 said:


> - Change back. You are the lucky owner who deposits a high value time worth 50 on the scale. You can travel in off season or can use a smaller unit at only 20. You get the "change back" (30 credits) for future trades.



Any idea on whether or not credits will be able to be rolled into a following year - or is it use it or lose it - and also whether or not you'd be able to choose which credits get allocated to a specific reservation ?

Would think the answer(s) would be yes and yes, but not sure.

Thanks,

Chris


----------



## skimble

rickandcindy23 said:


> Where are the last-minute exchanges we used to be able to get with our weeks?  I was willing to get such an exchange with my blue weeks.  I couldn't get a week in Southern California with my blue week, but there it was, in Last Call for 9K points.  I guess I should just take 21,500 PFD RCI Points for our week and get two Last Call exchanges for one.  THAT is how badly RCI has affected our weeks.
> 
> To compare RCI now to RCI of ten years ago, no comparison at all.  I am disappointed, but others keep saying our week is worthless.  You had to be there to experience the difference.  RCI made our week worthless.



EXACTLY!   RCI gives value to weeks.  Developers used THIS to sell.  And, Most owners retain their blue weeks, paying their fees every year because of this value.
The philosophical question has been brought up here... is it RCI's responsibility to give value to these weeks?  And, the answer is YES!!  
Without value, owners become far more inclined to walk away.  When they walk away, maintenance fees go up, the resort weeks are devalued, and more owners may walk away.  
Without any tenable value for off-season weeks, there's no reason to own them.  Original owners bought these weeks under the promise that they'd have trade value... being able to trade back into their own resort for a better season, and being able to trade 45 days out for something worth-while.  
As resorts lose dues paying owners, is it possible that this type of policy could cause them to go under?


----------



## Carolinian

skimble said:


> EXACTLY!   RCI gives value to weeks.  Developers used THIS to sell.  And, Most owners retain their blue weeks, paying their fees every year because of this value.
> The philosophical question has been brought up here... is it RCI's responsibility to give value to these weeks?  And, the answer is YES!!
> Without value, owners become far more inclined to walk away.  When they walk away, maintenance fees go up, the resort weeks are devalued, and more owners may walk away.
> Without any tenable value for off-season weeks, there's no reason to own them.  Original owners bought these weeks under the promise that they'd have trade value... being able to trade back into their own resort for a better season, and being able to trade 45 days out for something worth-while.
> As resorts lose dues paying owners, is it possible that this type of policy could cause them to go under?



You have hit the nail on the head.  The question is, however, now that RCI is in common ownership with a couple of major timeshare developers, whether they now see it in their overall interest to crash competing timeshare resorts?  That may be the whole purpose behind a series of moves in recent years to kick the financial props out from under the own-to-exchange model developed by Crystal deHahn, founder of RCI.

If RCI's main interest is as an exchange company, preserving the financial health of resorts is very much in their interest.  Preserving reasonable trades for all members generates membership revenue and exchange fees that they will not be getting when these people bail.  If their interests have moved in another direction, however, that changes the game.  If that is the case, resorts should recognize that and start migrating their owners to different exchange companies.


----------



## timeos2

*who eats the fat?*

The problem with the idea that RCI somehow "owes" an upgraded value to every owner of a blue week is that it still leaves a worthless, unwanted week after the upgrade. Who covers the cost of that? An argument can be made that is why rentals are needed to offset those lost weeks. I would rather see a straight like for like or small upgrade if possible and no rentals but not even RCI can create value when there is none or very limited.  Eliminate the free upgrades - trade like for like - and the "need" to rent goes away. 

Those who think RCI owes additional value to weeks  that virtually have none always fail to say who deals with (pays) to handle those unclaimed weeks. It is a big number as we know.  Far better that the resorts /owners work along with exchange, rental & other sources to create demand thus giving intrensic value to the fees due on those times.  RCI can play a role - as they do with Points - but they aren't the only one that has to try to give those times value. With the new ability to combine values, "change back" among others the proposed changes to RCI weeks it appears RCI is taking steps to help create that required value for the annual fees paid. They don't owe a free ride to low value owners.


----------



## Carolinian

The problem is that too many timesharers do not want to recognize the reality of what ''like'' is.  ''Like'' is set by only two factors - supply and demand.  Things like award status and location are merely drivers of demand, and the latter outranks the former in that regard.  There are nice areas that simply have more supply than there is demand much of the year.

The only objective factors to set what is ''like'' are those two - supply and demand.  If RCI starts interjecting subjective factors or double counting things that are drivers of demand, then they destroy the integrity of the market.  

If RCI were going to do a transparent system, with the formula and data behind it public, and based on the only two factors that matter - supply and demand - then I probably would not have too much problem with it, even though an exact number system is aggravating.  But I doubt RCI will do that, and if they hide the method used for assigning values it is a clear sign that they are cooking the books.  Half-way transparency only serves to create a huge incentive to cheat and put their thumb on the scales.

As to combining weeks, most timesharers can see that this involves multiple m/f's and have enough math skills to see that this is poor value.  Sorry, that is a non-starter.  The only real way RCI gives value to low points weeks is by stealing our Weeks system 45 day inventory to do it, which is downright dishonest and cheats Weeks owners and resorts.





timeos2 said:


> The problem with the idea that RCI somehow "owes" an upgraded value to every owner of a blue week is that it still leaves a worthless, unwanted week after the upgrade. Who covers the cost of that? An argument can be made that is why rentals are needed to offset those lost weeks. I would rather see a straight like for like or small upgrade if possible and no rentals but not even RCI can create value when there is none or very limited.  Eliminate the free upgrades - trade like for like - and the "need" to rent goes away.
> 
> Those who think RCI owes additional value to weeks  that virtually have none always fail to say who deals with (pays) to handle those unclaimed weeks. It is a big number as we know.  Far better that the resorts /owners work along with exchange, rental & other sources to create demand thus giving intrensic value to the fees due on those times.  RCI can play a role - as they do with Points - but they aren't the only one that has to try to give those times value. With the new ability to combine values, "change back" among others the proposed changes to RCI weeks it appears RCI is taking steps to help create that required value for the annual fees paid. They don't owe a free ride to low value owners.


----------



## timeos2

*The old way is dead for whatever reasons - deal with today*



Carolinian said:


> As to combining weeks, most timesharers can see that this involves multiple m/f's and have enough math skills to see that this is poor value.  Sorry, that is a non-starter.



But it isn't a non-starter. People are and have stated they are willing to do just that in order to glean value out.  I know it doesn't appeal to some - I don't like "cruise for points/weeks" either as I don't see it as a value - but others do see it as a viable option. Given a reasonable fee for the poor value time a combination of a couple may make perfect sense to get a trade that is really wanted. 

Being too closed minded to consider options, or insisting that only the old method is acceptable, doesn't help fix the problem of the low value times. It exists today under the rules as they exist.  Looking for options and getting them to work is the long term answer not artificial and unwarranted upgrades through an unrelated third party.


----------



## Mel

skimble said:


> EXACTLY!   RCI gives value to weeks.  Developers used THIS to sell.  And, Most owners retain their blue weeks, paying their fees every year because of this value.
> The philosophical question has been brought up here... is it RCI's responsibility to give value to these weeks?  And, the answer is YES!!
> Without value, owners become far more inclined to walk away.  When they walk away, maintenance fees go up, the resort weeks are devalued, and more owners may walk away.
> Without any tenable value for off-season weeks, there's no reason to own them.  Original owners bought these weeks under the promise that they'd have trade value... being able to trade back into their own resort for a better season, and being able to trade 45 days out for something worth-while.
> As resorts lose dues paying owners, is it possible that this type of policy could cause them to go under?


I fail to see why RCI is obliged to provide value for weeks that otherwise have little value.  Yes, the developers used RCI to sell those weeks, but that's not RCI's fault, that is the fault of the developers.  And the developer should have to come up with a plan to provide value for those owners, not RCI.

If you read the disclosures when you buy any timeshare week, you will not that RCI is an "extra" and is not in fact part of the purchase, nor is it guaranteed to be available in the future.  I know, how many people read the disclosures?  People seems to be willing to plop down thousands of dollars for this dream without reading the fine print - as if the developer is out there for the purpose of fulfilling their dreams.  Sorry folks, this is business, and the developer is out to make money.

RCI used to provide extra value for those offseason weeks, but the reality is those weeks were sold for far less than the peak weeks.  In fact it was at enough of a discount that if the owners had invested the "savings" they could have paid a fair portion, of not their entire maintenance fees from the investments earnings.  

The current model has owners of lower-value weeks not only paying lower purchase prices, but also lower annual fees.  Unfortunately many of the older resorts cannot change to such a system - not necessarily because of regulations, but because the peak-week owners would never agree to such a change (which they see as not being in their own best interest).  The real problem is that RCI has a mix of resorts from both models.  Perhaps if they stop propping the low-value weeks, and those owners do abandon their ownership to the HOAs, the owners of the peak weeks will see that it is indeed in their own best interst to reconfigure the way their resorts work.  If enough low-value weeks are turned back to the HOA, they will end up paying the same higher fees, and their resorts will either have to close in the off-season (and have NO income attrubutable to those seasons, but still have some expenses), or stay open and make those weeks available to owners (or rent then for what little they can get).

Yes, RCI allowed the resorts to use their program to sell those weeks, but RCI is under no obligation to continue to prop them up.  If RCI goes to this new points based model for the weeks system, even if there is plenty of last minute availability at a discount, I still don't see it helping those blue week owners.  Why?  For the same reason that people argue against the points system ability to "raid" weeks for 9000 points.  Under the original weeks system, if I own a week otherwise worth 30,000 points, I still used the whole value for that last-minute exchange while the blue week owner in effect got it for 9000 points.  Under this new system, I can use my 30,000 point week, and have 21,000 points left over to add to next year's exchange, so I am now more likely to compete for the 9000 point exchange.


----------



## skimble

timeos2 said:


> The problem with the idea that RCI somehow "owes" an upgraded value to every owner of a blue week is that it still leaves a worthless, unwanted week after the upgrade. Who covers the cost of that? An argument can be made that is why rentals are needed to offset those lost weeks. I would rather see a straight like for like or small upgrade if possible and no rentals but not even RCI can create value when there is none or very limited.  Eliminate the free upgrades - trade like for like - and the "need" to rent goes away.
> 
> Those who think RCI owes additional value to weeks  that virtually have none always fail to say who deals with (pays) to handle those unclaimed weeks. It is a big number as we know.  Far better that the resorts /owners work along with exchange, rental & other sources to create demand thus giving intrensic value to the fees due on those times.  RCI can play a role - as they do with Points - but they aren't the only one that has to try to give those times value. With the new ability to combine values, "change back" among others the proposed changes to RCI weeks it appears RCI is taking steps to help create that required value for the annual fees paid. They don't owe a free ride to low value owners.



RCI doesn't owe anyone upgraded value on a blue week.  Within every timeshare complex, there are gem weeks.  Even Indian Wells has the high demand month of March.  
The California coast has March through November-- the medium to high demand weeks, but they also need to make it through January and February. 
Owners of off-season weeks MUST retain semblance of value.  Their chance of getting good last minute trade is weak because of the competition to get them.  Providing the chance is there, owners can see value.  
If RCI lets these pink, white and blue weeks suffer as a result of this policy, we lose dues-paying owners.  Once we lose them, maintenance fees go up.  Once they hit a certain threshold, they lose more fee payers... and the cycle continues until the resort goes under.  
It's in the best interest of RCI to maintain the HEALTH of these resorts.


----------



## skimble

Mel said:


> I fail to see why RCI is obliged to provide value for weeks that otherwise have little value.  Yes, the developers used RCI to sell those weeks, but that's not RCI's fault, that is the fault of the developers.  And the developer should have to come up with a plan to provide value for those owners, not RCI.
> 
> If you read the disclosures when you buy any timeshare week, you will not that RCI is an "extra" and is not in fact part of the purchase, nor is it guaranteed to be available in the future.  I know, how many people read the disclosures?  People seems to be willing to plop down thousands of dollars for this dream without reading the fine print - as if the developer is out there for the purpose of fulfilling their dreams.  Sorry folks, this is business, and the developer is out to make money.
> 
> RCI used to provide extra value for those offseason weeks, but the reality is those weeks were sold for far less than the peak weeks.  In fact it was at enough of a discount that if the owners had invested the "savings" they could have paid a fair portion, of not their entire maintenance fees from the investments earnings.
> 
> The current model has owners of lower-value weeks not only paying lower purchase prices, but also lower annual fees.  Unfortunately many of the older resorts cannot change to such a system - not necessarily because of regulations, but because the peak-week owners would never agree to such a change (which they see as not being in their own best interest).  The real problem is that RCI has a mix of resorts from both models.  Perhaps if they stop propping the low-value weeks, and those owners do abandon their ownership to the HOAs, the owners of the peak weeks will see that it is indeed in their own best interst to reconfigure the way their resorts work.  If enough low-value weeks are turned back to the HOA, they will end up paying the same higher fees, and their resorts will either have to close in the off-season (and have NO income attrubutable to those seasons, but still have some expenses), or stay open and make those weeks available to owners (or rent then for what little they can get).
> 
> Yes, RCI allowed the resorts to use their program to sell those weeks, but RCI is under no obligation to continue to prop them up.  If RCI goes to this new points based model for the weeks system, even if there is plenty of last minute availability at a discount, I still don't see it helping those blue week owners.  Why?  For the same reason that people argue against the points system ability to "raid" weeks for 9000 points.  Under the original weeks system, if I own a week otherwise worth 30,000 points, I still used the whole value for that last-minute exchange while the blue week owner in effect got it for 9000 points.  Under this new system, I can use my 30,000 point week, and have 21,000 points left over to add to next year's exchange, so I am now more likely to compete for the 9000 point exchange.



I bought prime weeks in prime locations because I knew the value of owning during that time.  While there may be people who CAN utilize a week at that resort in the off-season, we NEED them to pay their share.  In this economy, it's SO easy to forgo the vacation week... just stop paying.  In a country where people are dropping mortgage payment and forgoing debt payments left and right, people don't need much of an excuse to abdicate the responsibility of a timeshare.  

It's like health care capitation.  Medical offices get paid, even when patients aren't going there.  Why?  Because the private health care industry wants to make sure these businesses are there when they need them  They recognized that medical offices need a stable income.  
Timeshare resorts need a stable income too.  It's different from capitation, but the concept is the same.  If you allow an integral part of your industry to go under, your business model will suffer.  

Is it healthy for RCI to lose resorts?  Indian Wells sucks during the summer-- well, sort of.  It's hot!  Some may enjoy it.  Some may want to experience it, but for most, it's worthless.  May through September is extremely low demand there.  Without people paying for May to Sept, we wouldn't have October- April weeks to enjoy.  
Wyndham, Hilton, Sunterra, and others like them don't have this problem because of their floating status.  They already function under this sustained health model-- one that protects the viability of the resort as a whole.  RCI functions as the catalyst for non-point, non-floating value and sustainability.


----------



## timeos2

*It was never an RCI obligation and it isn't now*



Mel said:


> I fail to see why RCI is obliged to provide value for weeks that otherwise have little value.  Yes, the developers used RCI to sell those weeks, but that's not RCI's fault, that is the fault of the developers.  And the developer should have to come up with a plan to provide value for those owners, not RCI.
> 
> If you read the disclosures when you buy any timeshare week, you will not that RCI is an "extra" and is not in fact part of the purchase, nor is it guaranteed to be available in the future.  I know, how many people read the disclosures?  People seems to be willing to plop down thousands of dollars for this dream without reading the fine print - as if the developer is out there for the purpose of fulfilling their dreams.  Sorry folks, this is business, and the developer is out to make money.
> 
> RCI used to provide extra value for those offseason weeks, but the reality is those weeks were sold for far less than the peak weeks.  In fact it was at enough of a discount that if the owners had invested the "savings" they could have paid a fair portion, of not their entire maintenance fees from the investments earnings.
> 
> The current model has owners of lower-value weeks not only paying lower purchase prices, but also lower annual fees.  Unfortunately many of the older resorts cannot change to such a system - not necessarily because of regulations, but because the peak-week owners would never agree to such a change (which they see as not being in their own best interest).  The real problem is that RCI has a mix of resorts from both models.  Perhaps if they stop propping the low-value weeks, and those owners do abandon their ownership to the HOAs, the owners of the peak weeks will see that it is indeed in their own best interst to reconfigure the way their resorts work.  If enough low-value weeks are turned back to the HOA, they will end up paying the same higher fees, and their resorts will either have to close in the off-season (and have NO income attrubutable to those seasons, but still have some expenses), or stay open and make those weeks available to owners (or rent then for what little they can get).
> 
> Yes, RCI allowed the resorts to use their program to sell those weeks, but RCI is under no obligation to continue to prop them up.  If RCI goes to this new points based model for the weeks system, even if there is plenty of last minute availability at a discount, I still don't see it helping those blue week owners.  Why?  For the same reason that people argue against the points system ability to "raid" weeks for 9000 points.  Under the original weeks system, if I own a week otherwise worth 30,000 points, I still used the whole value for that last-minute exchange while the blue week owner in effect got it for 9000 points.  Under this new system, I can use my 30,000 point week, and have 21,000 points left over to add to next year's exchange, so I am now more likely to compete for the 9000 point exchange.



Mel -

An absolutely perfect take on the situation. Simply repeating that it is RCI's fault, bemoaning the loss of what was an unsustainable operational model from over 2 decades ago and claiming things are rigged (or worse) does nothing to help things as they are today.  It is up to the Associations, maybe with any help that can be offered from RCI, II etc to solve it. It is not simply an RCI problem and never was. It has always been a low value problem that was glossed over by far too many slick sales pitches about the joys of ownership at a sun warmed resort in July selling a worthless, cold weather week to a clueless (and willing) buyer so they can "trade anywhere".   RCI (and II, etc) where the vehicles used to facilitate the potential trades but never guaranteed anything to anyone.  Read the documents.


----------



## Carolinian

timeos2 said:


> But it isn't a non-starter. People are and have stated they are willing to do just that in order to glean value out.  I know it doesn't appeal to some - I don't like "cruise for points/weeks" either as I don't see it as a value - but others do see it as a viable option. Given a reasonable fee for the poor value time a combination of a couple may make perfect sense to get a trade that is really wanted.
> 
> Being too closed minded to consider options, or insisting that only the old method is acceptable, doesn't help fix the problem of the low value times. It exists today under the rules as they exist.  Looking for options and getting them to work is the long term answer not artificial and unwarranted upgrades through an unrelated third party.



The problem is that they are NOT upgrades.  The market - supply and demand - say that the trades are equal.  That is all that matters.  The market says that much of the inventory in Orlando is of equal value with those off season low weeks everywhere, so be careful what you wish for.

Yeah, as P. T. Barham said, there is a sucker born every minute, but most timeshare folks can do math well enough that these combining weeks schemes are going to have very little appeal.

In the past, you have also not wanted to recognize the fact that last minute inventory, with its short shelf life, is distressed inventory.  The 45 day window is thus not ''trading up'' but an even trade.  There are various ''last minute'' travel shops outside of timeshare which also offer last minute inventory at hotels or hotel/charter flight packages at deep discounts.  It is just part of the leisure travel industry.


----------



## skimble

Powerful management companies will see the challenge to the viability of their resorts, and when dues-paying owners stop seeing value in their investment (stop paying, complain loudly), these companies will play politics.  Like others have said, they will find ways to manipulate the credits in their favor.  
It'll be just like RCI Points where some resorts have been given artificially high point value.  Take Tahachapi for example.  That resort has HUGELY overinflated point values.  Yet, look at the last minute boards-- if a week there is really worth 64K points, why do we see so many last minute bargains?  The same could be said for SO many others... Bonaventure in Florida-- hugely overinflated.  
I know RCI stepped in to refurbish a plan at Silver Lakes in So Cal.  They offered all the owners points packages of about 46K points for their week (if they signed in paying a significant upfront cost.)  This gave them value in their exchange, but all it did was garner extra $$ for RCI.  In reality, RCI introduced a lot of poor, 1 star weeks to the system in a resort where many of the units are occupied by full-time tenants who pay monthly.


----------



## skimble

timeos2 said:


> Mel -
> 
> An absolutely perfect take on the situation. Simply repeating that it is RCI's fault, bemoaning the loss of what was an unsustainable operational model from over 2 decades ago and claiming things are rigged (or worse) does nothing to help things as they are today.  It is up to the Associations, maybe with any help that can be offered from RCI, II etc to solve it. It is not simply an RCI problem and never was. It has always been a low value problem that was glossed over by far too many slick sales pitches about the joys of ownership at a sun warmed resort in July selling a worthless, cold weather week to a clueless (and willing) buyer so they can "trade anywhere".   RCI (and II, etc) where the vehicles used to facilitate the potential trades but never guaranteed anything to anyone.  Read the documents.



The thing many are failing to to acknowledge here is that RCI is giving nothing to these blue week owners.  When all they can trade for that has value is a last minute week, what has RCI truly given up.  Technically, people who deposit last minute are assigned the same trade value as a blue week anyway.  
RCI slaughters these resorts by offering these owners no value.  
OR, RCI offers tenuous value with a CHANCE at last minute exchanges and retains healthy viable resorts.


----------



## rickandcindy23

skimble said:


> The thing many are failing to to acknowledge here is that RCI is giving nothing to these blue week owners.  When all they can trade for that has value is a last minute week, what has RCI truly given up.  Technically, people who deposit last minute are assigned the same trade value as a blue week anyway.
> RCI slaughters these resorts by offering these owners no value.
> OR, RCI offers tenuous value with a CHANCE at last minute exchanges and retains healthy viable resorts.



And my point was that I couldn't even get a last-minute week with my blue week.  I could get it with RCI Points on the weeks side, for 9,000 points.  My blue week is worth 21,500 points as PFD, so I guess I need to put my blue week into points, and then I could get last-minute inventory.  Does that make sense to ANYONE?  

All blue weeks owners don't have RCI Points, so they just get the frustration of thinking nothing is there last-minute anymore.  It's wrong.  

By the way, my blue week still has SOME value in RCI, but it's Orlando, off-season: 1 bedrooms at the nicest resorts, 2 bedrooms for off-season at Orange Lake, 3 bedrooms at some of the lesser-rated resorts in off-season, etc.  I can still eke some value, but with the new system of "transparency," probably no longer.


----------



## Carolinian

As usual, Mel, there you are defending RCI.  Can you ever acknowledge that RCI has done anything wrong at any point?

In this case you completely ignore one very key point.  When these owners of offseason weeks purchased from a developer, they were provided RCI materials and particularly shown sales films produced by RCI that specifically mentioned the 45 day window.  RCI itself created this expectation, so they have a moral duty not to pull this rug out from under people.

As to charging lower m/f for low season weeks, this is NOT a ''new model''.  Yes, a few resorts may do that, but not that many.  In some states, as has been discussed on these boards before, it is against state law.  In the area I used to live in NC, zero resorts do that.  I repeat, zero.  Yes, if I were starting a new resort, it is something I would probably consider, as long as local law allowed it, but the industry needs to deal with the real facts on the ground.

Secondly, last minute inventory is always low value inventory from the simple fact that it is still on the shelf with a soon to occur expiration date.  That is true no matter what value it may have had sometime in the past.  When somebody makes a last minute deposit, their trade power given for that deposit is greatly reduced, and it is certainly consistent that if someone trades into a last minute week, the trading power needed to get it is simiilarly greatly reduced.

As to Points people, they ought to be getting last minute inventory out of their own system at 9K point, not raiding our system for that inventory.




Mel said:


> I fail to see why RCI is obliged to provide value for weeks that otherwise have little value.  Yes, the developers used RCI to sell those weeks, but that's not RCI's fault, that is the fault of the developers.  And the developer should have to come up with a plan to provide value for those owners, not RCI.
> 
> If you read the disclosures when you buy any timeshare week, you will not that RCI is an "extra" and is not in fact part of the purchase, nor is it guaranteed to be available in the future.  I know, how many people read the disclosures?  People seems to be willing to plop down thousands of dollars for this dream without reading the fine print - as if the developer is out there for the purpose of fulfilling their dreams.  Sorry folks, this is business, and the developer is out to make money.
> 
> RCI used to provide extra value for those offseason weeks, but the reality is those weeks were sold for far less than the peak weeks.  In fact it was at enough of a discount that if the owners had invested the "savings" they could have paid a fair portion, of not their entire maintenance fees from the investments earnings.
> 
> The current model has owners of lower-value weeks not only paying lower purchase prices, but also lower annual fees.  Unfortunately many of the older resorts cannot change to such a system - not necessarily because of regulations, but because the peak-week owners would never agree to such a change (which they see as not being in their own best interest).  The real problem is that RCI has a mix of resorts from both models.  Perhaps if they stop propping the low-value weeks, and those owners do abandon their ownership to the HOAs, the owners of the peak weeks will see that it is indeed in their own best interst to reconfigure the way their resorts work.  If enough low-value weeks are turned back to the HOA, they will end up paying the same higher fees, and their resorts will either have to close in the off-season (and have NO income attrubutable to those seasons, but still have some expenses), or stay open and make those weeks available to owners (or rent then for what little they can get).
> 
> Yes, RCI allowed the resorts to use their program to sell those weeks, but RCI is under no obligation to continue to prop them up.  If RCI goes to this new points based model for the weeks system, even if there is plenty of last minute availability at a discount, I still don't see it helping those blue week owners.  Why?  For the same reason that people argue against the points system ability to "raid" weeks for 9000 points.  Under the original weeks system, if I own a week otherwise worth 30,000 points, I still used the whole value for that last-minute exchange while the blue week owner in effect got it for 9000 points.  Under this new system, I can use my 30,000 point week, and have 21,000 points left over to add to next year's exchange, so I am now more likely to compete for the 9000 point exchange.


----------



## rickandcindy23

*Comparing weeks and points, you must have points to do it.*

RCI weeks used to load last-minute inventory (and all new inventory) between midnight and 1:00 a.m. Eastern Time.  Now RCI Points still gets that inventory loaded at that time, but weeks doesn't get the same inventory at the same time.  

RCI decided to load weeks inventory at various times of day, in their infinite wisdome, so RCI Points has a "leg up" on weeks for that reason.  It's wrong.  

Say what you want about II, but they don't do things like that.


----------



## timeos2

*It is value not cost that is being measured*



Carolinian said:


> The problem is that they are NOT upgrades.  The market - supply and demand - say that the trades are equal.  That is all that matters.  The market says that much of the inventory in Orlando is of equal value with those off season low weeks everywhere, so be careful what you wish for.
> 
> Yeah, as P. T. Barham said, there is a sucker born every minute, but most timeshare folks can do math well enough that these combining weeks schemes are going to have very little appeal.
> 
> In the past, you have also not wanted to recognize the fact that last minute inventory, with its short shelf life, is distressed inventory.  The 45 day window is thus not ''trading up'' but an even trade.  There are various ''last minute'' travel shops outside of timeshare which also offer last minute inventory at hotels or hotel/charter flight packages at deep discounts.  It is just part of the leisure travel industry.



You want to keep repeating that they "are equal" (what is "they" and what is "equal?") but the market - the open rental market not controlled by anyone - says that Blue weeks on the beach, only as an example - I could have picked February in Cape Cod or April in Pennsylvania - is worth maybe $50/night while the same period in a much nicer resort in LV, Orlando, Ca - almost any less seasonal area - is worth two or three times that at least.  So by any reasonable measure the cost for a trade should also be double or even triple. Remember too that the fee being charged for annual maintenance - just like original purchase cost - isn't the deciding factor (you often argue that yourself). It is and should be measurable demand.  The non-seasonals will win that every time in the less than top times - they may be even or lower in the top prime periods. 

You have  often state that simply because a feature filled Orlando resort has a high annual fee doesn't mean it is more valuable than a beach week with a lower one. Well the same applies to the off season. Just because the blue week owner gets screwed by their fellow owners (who are subsidized by their fees) by paying too much doesn't mean it is magically raised in value when they want to trade elsewhere.  

To simply say that the majority of blue time is equal to the much more desirable "pink" (as we often call it here) time is beyond ridiculous.   No one can argue that the two are equal with a straight face. You can repeat it all you want but simply say you can have a week at the beach in January for $75 OR you can have a week in Orlando (or LV, or wherever) and see which one gets more demand. It is a clear winner for the non-seasonal areas every time.


----------



## Carolinian

timeos2 said:


> You want to keep repeating that they "are equal" (what is "they" and what is "equal?") but the market - the open rental market not controlled by anyone - says that Blue weeks on the beach, only as an example - I could have picked February in Cape Cod or April in Pennsylvania - is worth maybe $50/night while the same period in a much nicer resort in LV, Orlando, Ca - almost any less seasonal area - is worth two or three times that at least.  So by any reasonable measure the cost for a trade should also be double or even triple. Remember too that the fee being charged for annual maintenance - just like original purchase cost - isn't the deciding factor (you often argue that yourself). It is and should be measurable demand.  The non-seasonals will win that every time in the less than top times - they may be even or lower in the top prime periods.
> 
> You have  often state that simply because a feature filled Orlando resort has a high annual fee doesn't mean it is more valuable than a beach week with a lower one. Well the same applies to the off season. Just because the blue week owner gets screwed by their fellow owners (who are subsidized by their fees) by paying too much doesn't mean it is magically raised in value when they want to trade elsewhere.
> 
> To simply say that the majority of blue time is equal to the much more desirable "pink" (as we often call it here) time is beyond ridiculous.   No one can argue that the two are equal with a straight face. You can repeat it all you want but simply say you can have a week at the beach in January for $75 OR you can have a week in Orlando (or LV, or wherever) and see which one gets more demand. It is a clear winner for the non-seasonal areas every time.




What is involved here is the EXCHANGE market, not what hotels or someone outside of timeshare exchanging may charge.  Value is determined by how many timeshare exchange deposits there are in an area versus how many people want to trade in there.  I will admit that Orlando is a nice place to go, at least once in a while, and that there is a lot of demand, but what you want to bury your head in the sand about is that there is simply way too much supply, due to overbuilding by timeshare developers.  RCI employee Bootleg, formerly a regular on these boards, told us that the resort with the biggest oversupply of inventory in the entire RCI system was Vacation Village at Parkway in Orlando.  He also told us that the resort areas that were awash in oversupply were Orlando, Branson, Williamsburg, and Massanutten.

RCI's own directories, at least the European version of it, confirm this in their availibility charts.  You always want to put down those who own and trade South Africa resorts, but those same availibility tables produced by RCI show that South Africa has a much better supply / demand curve than Florida.  Logic would demand, then, that if RCI really is going to base their values on supply and demand, South Africa should have higher values than Florida.  If the values turn out different, then there has been a thumb on the scales.

As to blue weeks, there are resorts in England like Stouts Hill, Broome Park, or Wychnor Park where even blue weeks rarely show up for trade online.  Those blue weeks should have a higher value than ''red'' weeks from places that always have lots of inventory availible.  It should all be about the objective factors of supply and demand, not someone's subjective opinion of what is a more ''desirable'' resort.  That includes RCI's subjective opinions as well, which is one of the reasons they need to show us the data.  If I was involved in timesharing in an overbuilt area like Orlando, I probably might be concerned about RCI showing the supply / demand data, too!


----------



## "Roger"

skimble said:


> The thing many are failing to to acknowledge here is that RCI is giving nothing to these blue week owners.  When all they can trade for that has value is a last minute week, what has RCI truly given up.  .


But they are giving something up.... the exchange fees paid by Points owners (sometimes multiple exchange fees from a Points owner who uses a single deposit to buy a number of last minute weeks) plus no obligation to compensate the Points owner for 9000 points. (At a penny a point, that is equivalent to about $90.)

[Note:  Have you every wondered why RCI doesn't allow Points owners to make last minute exchanges for Points resorts for 9000 points?  Because then the exchange fee would be less and most of the $90 that they are trying to recoup would disappear.]

Admittedly this may not seem like a lot (in fact, it would be better if RCI were to manage its inventory via the rental market and avoid any last minute inventory), but it adds up.  

I realize the fact that the 9000 point exchanges are only available to Points owners is unpopular and any mention of rentals is even more unpopular (even though Craig Urbane said II could not survive without them), so let us put the whole issue the other way around.  

How much more would you personally be willing to pay in higher exchange fees if RCI were to subsudize resorts with blue weeks? (Or, what would be the outcome if RCI owners were to vote on the idea of subsudizing blue weeks owners with the money coming out of increased exchange fees?)

As John said here and in another thread, everything has a cost.  Those costs have to be covered somehow.


----------



## Carolinian

*Seasonality of resorts*

John, you always want to say Orlando is non-seasonal, but you apparently forget, for example hurricane season.  Orlando, like the overbuilt Canary Islands, have had their developers blessed by an RCI ''red all year'' designation, but both are awash in oversupply in the timeshare exchange systems.

But lets look at another source, RCI's availibility charts, which are published in their European directory.  These show availibilty in the RCI system (the whole system, as European members have the same availibility as members anywhere else in the system) in various resort areas.  They break it down into four categories from Best availibility, or lots of supply chased by less demand  down to Limited, where demand overwhelms supply.  

Florida shows as a very seasonal area as to supply and demand on RCI's chart.  Two month, February and March, show as having the most limited category of availibility, and three more months have the second most limited category of availibility.  On the other hand, three months have RCI's most open category of availibility and four its second most open.  That adds up to a very seasonal resort area in terms of supply and demand.

Now lets compare NON-seasonal areas:
South Africa has all 12 months in the most limited category of availibility.
Isreal has all 12 months in the most limited category of availibility
Ireland has all 12 months in the most limited category of availibility
Mexico has 9 months in the most open category and 3 months in the second most open.
Finland has 9 months in the most open category and 3 months in the second most open.
Switzerland has all 12 months in the most limited category of availibility
Cyprus has all 12 months in the most limited category of availibility
Tenerife, Canary Islands has 2 months in the most open category of availibility and 10 months in the second most open

We will see how RCI's new set of numbers stacks up with what it has already published as to supply and demand within its system.  It they don't add up, the books have been cooked.


----------



## Carolinian

Well, Roger, I was wondering when you would join in with your dependable defenses of whatever RCI happened to be doing at the moment.

Lets put it another way.  Crystal deHahn, the founder of RCI made the system work for years, built a nice company, and made a nice profit, without resorting to any of the tricks that Cendant and now its successor Wyndham have brought in since they bought the company.  Under her leadership, there was no diversion of 45 day inventory to either another exchange system (such as points) or to rentals.  It worked. It made money.

It very simply does NOT have to be done the way Cendant / Wyndham have been doing it.  Crystal deHahn clearly proved that.  Cendant / Wyndham have just been grasping for more money at the expense of both members and resorts.




"Roger" said:


> But they are giving something up.... the exchange fees paid by Points owners (sometimes multiple exchange fees from a Points owner who uses a single deposit to buy a number of last minute weeks) plus no obligation to compensate the Points owner for 9000 points. (At a penny a point, that is equivalent to about $90.)
> 
> [Note:  Have you every wondered why RCI doesn't allow Points owners to make last minute exchanges for Points resorts for 9000 points?  Because then the exchange fee would be less and most of the $90 that they are trying to recoup would disappear.]
> 
> Admittedly this may not seem like a lot (in fact, it would be better if RCI were to manage its inventory via the rental market and avoid any last minute inventory), but it adds up.
> 
> I realize the fact that the 9000 point exchanges are only available to Points owners is unpopular and any mention of rentals is even more unpopular (even though Craig Urbane said II could not survive without them), so let us put the whole issue the other way around.
> 
> How much more would you personally be willing to pay in higher exchange fees if RCI were to subsudize resorts with blue weeks? (Or, what would be the outcome if RCI owners were to vote on the idea of subsudizing blue weeks owners with the money coming out of increased exchange fees?)
> 
> As John said here and in another thread, everything has a cost.  Those costs have to be covered somehow.


----------



## "Roger"

Crystal deHann was operating at time when there was no Internet.  That insulated RCI from many outside forces (including the alternative of people renting without dealing with timesshares at all).  In addition, most resorts at the time were of the approximately same quality (thus, colors almost made sense.) If she were to try to operate in the same way in today's market, other exchange companies and outside groups (ebay, rental agencies, etc.) would eat her lunch.

[I did not find any response to the substance of my post.  What I did notice is how you opened up your posts to Mel and myself.]


----------



## Carolinian

I guess you have to consider that you and Mel have been on the opposite side from myself of just about every RCI issue that has come down the pike for years. It is entirely predictable where each of you will come down.

Far from being a threat to an exchange system, the internet has been a boon to it.  RCI was not the first out of the box on using the web as a platform for the timeshare exchange business.  A group of business graduate students in Sweden who founded the independent exchange company Timelinx got the jump on them.  But they got in the groove, and it has been a plus, not a minus.

The internet is also still not that major of a force in timeshare rentals.  From personal experience as an HOA member, I am well aware that the overwhelming majority of rentals at our resort came through the local timeshare specialist rental / resale broker rather than the internet.

The internet is simply not an excuse for Cendant / Wyndham's abuse of the RCI exchange system.  They simply wanted to squeeze more money out of the system a-la-Enron.  And their latest gambit is just more of the same, as the main thing to look for will be the way they will offer to sell members the extra points they need, with the money going to RCI.  That is the whole reason for such a system in the first place.

All resorts in Crystal deHahn's day did NOT have anything close to equal locations, and location always trumps quality or award status as a driver of demand, so resorts even then were far from equal.

If Crystal deHahn set up a new exchange business today based on her proven business model, it is she who would eat RCI's lunch.  There would be a massive flight of resorts and members from RCI to her new entity.




"Roger" said:


> Crystal deHann was operating at time when there was no Internet.  That insulated RCI from many outside forces (including the alternative of people renting without dealing with timesshares at all).  In addition, most resorts at the time were of the approximately same quality (thus, colors almost made sense.) If she were to try to operate in the same way in today's market, other exchange companies and outside groups (ebay, rental agencies, etc.) would eat her lunch.
> 
> [I did not find any response to the substance of my post.  What I did notice is how you opened up your posts to Mel and myself.]


----------



## "Roger"

How much more would you personally be willing to pay in higher exchange fees if RCI were to subsudize resorts with blue weeks?


----------



## Carolinian

"Roger" said:


> How much more would you personally be willing to pay in higher exchange fees if RCI were to subsudize resorts with blue weeks?



RCI is NOT subsidizing anything.  They gain revenue from blue week owners from membership fees and exchange fees.  When they make those weeks unviable for exchange, they lose that revenue.

Second, a distressed short shelf life week about to expire is NOT by any wild stretch of the imagination a subsidy.  It is not a trade up.  It is simply an equal trade at that juncture.  A trade into an area with an oversupply of inventory is likewise not a subsidy or a trade up.  It is a simple recognition that the laws of supply and demand dictate value.  Sometimes I thing the adovcates of the overbuilt areas would try to repeal the laws of supply and demand if they could.  At the very least they are constantly in denial of them.

If anything, you have it backwards.  When RCI finishes losing the revenue from the membership fees and exchange fees of the blue week owners, they will have to make up that revenue by raising exchange fees and/or membership fees on the remaining members.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> As usual, Mel, there you are defending RCI.  Can you ever acknowledge that RCI has done anything wrong at any point?


I have never said RCI can do no wrong.  What I have said is that RCI is not the one responsible for providing value.  The resorts are - and in the past they have done that by encouraging membership in RCI and II.  Bottom line, however, is that the resorts are responsible for providing the value.  

Timeshare owners need to be responsible for their own purchases, including reading the fine print.  RCI was an available option when they purchased, but it was not a guaranteed part of the program - some resort have even lost their affiliation - is it RCI's fault that those former members gain NO value in terms of exchanges?


> In this case you completely ignore one very key point.  When these owners of offseason weeks purchased from a developer, they were provided RCI materials and particularly shown sales films produced by RCI that specifically mentioned the 45 day window.  RCI itself created this expectation, so they have a moral duty not to pull this rug out from under people.


But again, it is the developers who are using RCI to sell their weeks.  And once again, it is the owners who didn't read the fine print.  Most of the sales contracts explicity state that RCI is not part of the program their are buying, but an additional program that is not guaranteed.


> As to charging lower m/f for low season weeks, this is NOT a ''new model''.  Yes, a few resorts may do that, but not that many.  In some states, as has been discussed on these boards before, it is against state law.  In the area I used to live in NC, zero resorts do that.  I repeat, zero.  Yes, if I were starting a new resort, it is something I would probably consider, as long as local law allowed it, but the industry needs to deal with the real facts on the ground.


It is a newer model, and even in those states where it is "illegal," it is not completely illegal.  It would require certain work on the part of the HOA, but most of those resorts could be converted to a similar type of model.





> Secondly, last minute inventory is always low value inventory from the simple fact that it is still on the shelf with a soon to occur expiration date.  That is true no matter what value it may have had sometime in the past.  When somebody makes a last minute deposit, their trade power given for that deposit is greatly reduced, and it is certainly consistent that if someone trades into a last minute week, the trading power needed to get it is simiilarly greatly reduced.
> 
> As to Points people, they ought to be getting last minute inventory out of their own system at 9K point, not raiding our system for that inventory.


I won't argue about last minute inventory - you're right, it should be reduced, but maybe not in the same way.  A 15,000 point week drops to 9,000 at 45 days, but so does a 150,000 point week.  Can you honestly argue that the 15,000 points week has the same value as the 150,000 point week when you hit that magical 45 day window?  The whole model needs to change.  Allow a discount, but prorate that discount so the mid-level week owner still gets some benefit over the lower-demand owner.

And yes, points owners should be getting their last minute inventory from the points side, not the weeks resorts.


----------



## skimble

"Roger" said:


> How much more would you personally be willing to pay in higher exchange fees if RCI were to subsudize resorts with blue weeks?



I fail to see where RCI loses revenue.  
1.  They retain healthy timeshare resorts (Resorts that did not initially set up a floating system and are subject to 
2.  They retain dues paying MEMBERS
3.  They gain the exchange fee with every exchange.  
If there's a loss, it's in the rental of that week.
About 25% of all RCI inventory goes unused.  That's their basis for renting a portion of these weeks.  
Look at the last minute inventory... about 90% of it is junk anyway.  RCI didn't pay the maintenance fees for the junk. Junk in, junk out.  If the other 10% makes for a highly satisfied fee-paying owner, then it's in RCI's best interest to do this.


----------



## skimble

Also, it was said, a blue week is worth the value of a last minute deposit.  

1.  You have to be a Points week owners to benefit from this.  
2.  IF you are a Points owner, you have to do a PFD.  If your resort week is already affiliated with RCI Points, you cannot do PFD.  You have to pay the $3K for conversion.
3.  Who would pay $600 for 9000 points, knowing that these points are 1/5th the value of anything decent?   Your answer to this should tell you:  The people who KNOW the absolute value of their week will have NO RESALE value (not that they had much before, but at least they could give it away on premise that their buyer could exchange.)  They'll also have no intrinsic value, and this will severely hurt ALL resorts (except politically charged management companies, and mini-systems.)


----------



## rickandcindy23

RCI originally wasn't in the position of determining the value of my week.  Instead of being an exchange company, they are now valuing weeks based on rental values. 

Believe me, we have owned that blue week since 1983, and we have gotten incredible trades with it, and not at the last minute, up until about 2000, when we realized RCI had devalued it so greatly.  

Disappointment doesn't begin to describe how our best traders are suddenly also not worthy of a Hawaii week trade, unless it's a small unit.  I don't want to use RCI weeks for anything, ever again. 

We have some Wyndham deposits that are just going to expire, I am afraid.  I have no use for them.  I like searching with them, but I don't see much.


----------



## AFARR

*What about Weeks & Points resorts...*

I'm assuming that under the 'system' being debated***(more on that in a moment), RCI will have to somehow value the Trade (deeded) weeks the same way as points at the same resort.

I watched an Outer Banks Beach Club II week just sell on ebay (it was a points week...only a few owners chose to convert, but the whole resort isn't listed as a points resort)..69k points for Week 19 (2 Br).    The vast majority of weeks are not points.    I own a similar week there ('pink' I think is the term used...Red but not high prime..Wk 37).   I'll have to see how it is valued compared to other resorts and compared to that level of points.  

I've watched weeks at BIS Duck and Kitty Hawk sell recently (both are points resorts)....and will have to see how they 'value' weeks like those for trades vs. their point value.

My point (Cliff's Notes Version)...RCI will probably have to basically use their Points System as a basis for the 'trade credit' system....there are a lot of resorts (or at least it appears so to me) that have both weeks and points units.


***And, a final note....even as a Newbie, it strikes me that RCI is probably going to do something that is easiest and best  FOR THEM, rather than what is fair to various owners/resorts/etc.    Good points were made above, but RCI is a business entity...so they are going to do some valuation that helps them continue to make money (and avoid further lawsuits)...being 'fair' to owners is probably not highest on the list....I'd rate it as low (#1. is Money, #2. is bolstering resorts they own interest in..{assuming they can do it fairly covertly}, #3. Bolstering new development, #4. Avoiding a new lawsuit, and finally #5. is keeping current resort owners happy.

AFARR


----------



## Timeshare Von

urple2 said:


> This may well line up with the insider Wyndham rumors I've heard about all generic Wyndham deposits will become visible by June. As to whether there will still be a Wyndham to Wyndham preference will also remain to be seen.



As I read the initial post and the first couple of responses, this was my biggest question (the Wyndham to Wyndham preference . . . since heretofore, I've been pretty satisfied with my ability to land The Big Island/Hawaii with my Flagstaff and Kingsgate units, including getting a 2BR for a 1BR deposit.


----------



## Timeshare Von

Mel said:


> . . .Timeshare owners need to be responsible for their own purchases, including reading the fine print.  RCI was an available option when they purchased, but it was not a guaranteed part of the program - some resort have even lost their affiliation - is it RCI's fault that those former members gain NO value in terms of exchanges? . . .



It's not even a matter of reading the fine print . . . it has a lot to do with the changing of the rules by RCI, particularly since resorts use RCI as a large selling point based on the policies at the time.

I still remember the really good ole days when you'd get your deposit back if RCI didn't make an exchange to someone else for it.  That was a very nice feature that eventually went away.

Fortunately, I got to take advantage of that once and with the only TS I purchased from a developer.  Since that one, all that I own is via resale or freebie give aways.

Von


----------



## Carolinian

The points you are seeing at OBBC are certainly from the Peppertree points system rather than RCI Points. When they had almost finished selling, Peppertree went to selling points.  Some of those were connected to weeks at OBBC, but most were deeded to resorts elsewhere (''points are points'' they explained to people).  Since they toured people at OBBC, many buyers wanted to come to OBBC but they had little points inventory there, especially in summer, so they ended up with many unhappy purchasers.  The whole Peppertree points fiasco is one thing that has made a lot of people on the OBX allergic to points.

On the OBX, the BIS resorts which are in RCI Points have six value bands.  An example that someone on another board had seen for his own resort had the new system at 15 bands of value.  That aspect is certainly an improvement from RCI Points, which suffers from overaveraging on value over periods that are too broad.  The point, however, is that this new Weeks system seems to use a lot more bands than RCI Points, so it is not the same value system.  If anything it is a more detailed and better one.

BTW, if you really want to track OBX t/s sales, eBay is a tiny part of the market.  A better place to watch is the Dare County website under ''Land Transfers Approved''.  You will find that eBay prices are a bargain compared to what most people are paying.





AFARR said:


> I'm assuming that under the 'system' being debated***(more on that in a moment), RCI will have to somehow value the Trade (deeded) weeks the same way as points at the same resort.
> 
> I watched an Outer Banks Beach Club II week just sell on ebay (it was a points week...only a few owners chose to convert, but the whole resort isn't listed as a points resort)..69k points for Week 19 (2 Br).    The vast majority of weeks are not points.    I own a similar week there ('pink' I think is the term used...Red but not high prime..Wk 37).   I'll have to see how it is valued compared to other resorts and compared to that level of points.
> 
> I've watched weeks at BIS Duck and Kitty Hawk sell recently (both are points resorts)....and will have to see how they 'value' weeks like those for trades vs. their point value.
> 
> My point (Cliff's Notes Version)...RCI will probably have to basically use their Points System as a basis for the 'trade credit' system....there are a lot of resorts (or at least it appears so to me) that have both weeks and points units.
> 
> 
> ***And, a final note....even as a Newbie, it strikes me that RCI is probably going to do something that is easiest and best  FOR THEM, rather than what is fair to various owners/resorts/etc.    Good points were made above, but RCI is a business entity...so they are going to do some valuation that helps them continue to make money (and avoid further lawsuits)...being 'fair' to owners is probably not highest on the list....I'd rate it as low (#1. is Money, #2. is bolstering resorts they own interest in..{assuming they can do it fairly covertly}, #3. Bolstering new development, #4. Avoiding a new lawsuit, and finally #5. is keeping current resort owners happy.
> 
> AFARR


----------



## Carolinian

Again, you hit the nail on the head.  Over the years, in discussing RCI issues, you are one poster who seems to consistently be able to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Back in my HOA board and HOA president days, I went through our resort's records to analyze usage patterns.  Our managers had kept copious records year by year of how the unit was actually used, owner occupancy, renter, exchanger, or not used.  Our longtime secretary had also maintained good records on ownership with chains of title for each unit going back to the developer.

For the summer, a large majority of weeks had either not changed hands since purchased from the developer or if they had it had been a parent to child transfer within the family.  From looking at the usage records, only about 10% of summer weeks were being exchanged, which was a long term pattern.  From talking to some of these owners at HOA meetings, most of them seem to have bought to use and dropped their exchange company membership as soon as the free membership the developer had set them up with expired.  They bought to come to the OBX and simply never had any interest at all in exchanging.

Generally, the farther in the year one got from summer, the more turnover in ownership there had been, but there were still more weeks than I expected which had never changed hands out of the family that had originally bought from the developer.

Among non-summer weeks, during the fall fishing season from September through Thanksgiving, about 20% of weeks were exchanged, and for the rest of the year it was about 30%.

As to exchange deposits that were filled by exchange companies, virtually all weeks were filled during red and white season and about 7 of the blue weeks. Another 3 blue weeks had a pretty fair record of being filled.  There were 9 blue weeks where exchange deposits were often not filled, but of course the resort's maintenance weeks also fell within those 9 weeks.  The maintenance weeks were staggered rather than the whole resort shut for maintenance.

The point is that RCI's bread and butter on membership fees and exchange fees is NOT in high season.  There best period is shoulder season, pink, white and the better blue weeks.  But even the lesser blue weeks produce more for them than the high season, as they get membership fees, outbound exchange fee, and some inbound exchange fees.

Piss off these people and they will be shooting the goose which laid the golden egg.







skimble said:


> I fail to see where RCI loses revenue.
> 1.  They retain healthy timeshare resorts (Resorts that did not initially set up a floating system and are subject to
> 2.  They retain dues paying MEMBERS
> 3.  They gain the exchange fee with every exchange.
> If there's a loss, it's in the rental of that week.
> About 25% of all RCI inventory goes unused.  That's their basis for renting a portion of these weeks.
> Look at the last minute inventory... about 90% of it is junk anyway.  RCI didn't pay the maintenance fees for the junk. Junk in, junk out.  If the other 10% makes for a highly satisfied fee-paying owner, then it's in RCI's best interest to do this.


----------



## bnoble

> RCI originally wasn't in the position of determining the value of my week


There was a time when RCI did not employ trade power?  That's news to me.


----------



## AFARR

Carolinian said:


> The points you are seeing at OBBC are certainly from the Peppertree points system rather than RCI Points. Snip...
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, if you really want to track OBX t/s sales, eBay is a tiny part of the market.  A better place to watch is the Dare County website under ''Land Transfers Approved''.  You will find that eBay prices are a bargain compared to what most people are paying.



Here's the quote from the Ebay ad: 





> This ownership is for 69,000 Annual RCI Points, which offers a greater flexibility in planning and using your timeshare


.  Knowing that a lot of the resellers don't usually know what they are selling, I called them directly....RCI verified to them it was an RCI points week.   I called the resort (took two phone calls..and got the manager finally)...there are a very few RCI points weeks there.   RCI Points help desk did verify that there are a few of these 'red-headed step children' around...the overall resort is weeks, but some people did convert at one point, and unless they drop the points, it is grandfathered.  

Didn't so much want to track OBX sales as to see how RCI values an identical week (OBBC II) in their 'trade credit' system.   They value it much lower than what the points week would bring...then it confirms your hypothesis that they are messing around with the values.   Value it the same....doesn't change the hypothesis (no proof either way)...same for BIS Kitty Hawk, Duck, and Ocean Pines...there are weeks and there are points at both resorts.   

AFARR


----------



## "Roger"

skimple,

Obviously we are going to disagree over blue weeks.  Personally I think the whole issue belongs in a separate thread.  If you would like to discuss it more, I would be happy to open one up.

It is your next post that interests me at the moment.  I confess that I did not understand it at all.  I have inserted some comments, but maybe they are not even relavant.  As I said, the post puzzled me...



skimble said:


> Also, it was said, a blue week is worth the value of a last minute deposit.
> 
> I am not sure what comment you are targeting - there have been so many comments about the value of blue weeks.
> 
> 1.  You have to be a Points week owners to benefit from this.
> 
> Yes and no.  Yes, you have to be a Points member to benefit from the 9000 (sometimes 7500 point) rule.  These weeks, however, show up in an online search of what is currently available within the Weeks system, they have not been set aside exclusively for the use of Points owners.  (In other words, they are still available to Weeks owners - that includes both the good weeks and the fairly worthless ones.)
> 
> I presume that, since some (many, most?) of these weeks have little values, they can also be seen by blue week owners.
> 
> (As an aside, the fact that they are not all available to blue week owners seems to discredit the idea that behind the secret curtain of the Weeks system, value is solely decided by the dynamic forces of supply and demand. If  that were true, given the lack of demand, the value of all of them should have fallen to something that would be available to blue week owners.  Who knows how the secret system works.)
> 
> 2.  IF you are a Points owner, you have to do a PFD.  If your resort week is already affiliated with RCI Points, you cannot do PFD.  You have to pay the $3K for conversion.
> 
> The opening sentence is the comment that totally baffled me.  Suppose I have 75,000 points and use 40,000 for a March vacation at Hilton Head. (This can be done purely within Points.)  I still have 35,000 points to use, perhaps toward some 9000 point exchanges.  Why do I have to do a PDF?  (I am completley missing your point?)
> 
> 3.  Who would pay $600 for 9000 points, knowing that these points are 1/5th the value of anything decent?   Your answer to this should tell you:  The people who KNOW the absolute value of their week will have NO RESALE value (not that they had much before, but at least they could give it away on premise that their buyer could exchange.)  They'll also have no intrinsic value, and this will severely hurt ALL resorts (except politically charged management companies, and mini-systems.)
> 
> I take your point (again, perhaps mistaken) to be why would I pay $600 in maitenance fees, do a PDF, and then only get a low value exchange for my fees?  (If that is what you are asking??), the answer is that for the $600 maintence fees and a PDF, I could easily deposit somewhere between 38,000 and 56,000 points into my Points account.  That would pay for something like five 9000 point exchanges.  Add in the exchange fees, the total cost for five exchanges would be about $1450.  That puts the daily cost of staying in a timeshare at about $41.
> 
> Is it worth it?  I have never done it (any 9000 exchange), but others suggest that this is the way to go.  They think it is.


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> I guess you have to consider that you and Mel have been on the opposite side from myself of just about every RCI issue that has come down the pike for years. It is entirely predictable where each of you will come down...


Just as a side note, from my perspective, the single biggest issue that we have been at odds at is whether RCI should keep trade values secret.  You sided with RCI.  I think that the most corrupt part of timesharing (and there are a number) is that fact that developers are able to sell two bedroom, gold crown weeks in October and April for $20,000 or more with the promise that they have good trade value.  I cannot write this off as an incidental problem.  How often have we seen posts from newbies saying that they have an ongoing search for a summer week, a Disney, etc. and can't understand why they are not getting results?  ("I deposited a two bedroom, Gold Crown...") Politely telling these people that they spent $20,000 for something of little value is not pleasant.  The fact that this will apparently come to an end (the original post in this thread) is single biggest step that could be taken to clean up timesharing.  (Not that there aren't others.)


----------



## Carolinian

You misstate my position.  The nonpublished trade system works great as long as there are no conflicts of interest by the entity running it.  We saw that in the Crystal deHahn era at RCI.  The problem comes in when a conflict of interest is created by the entity running the exchange system.  For RCI this developed when they opened this massive rent exchange deposits to the public operation.  That seriously compromised the nonpublished system.

However what is even worse, the worst of all worlds, is the halfway transparent system, where they tell you numbers but hide the way they arrive at them.  This creates both the incentive and ability to cook the books.  The conflict of interest gets even larger when the entity running the exchange system also is in common ownership with a couple of major timeshare developers.

As I have said a long time ago, I really do not have that much of a problem with a fully transparent system where the method of setting numbers, the data behind it, and of course the end product are ALL public.  I find it rather amusing that some of those who beat their chests the loudest about ''transparency'' also staunchly defend RCI's hiding the most important part of the process, the method of setting numbers and the data behind it.  The reason for some is rather obvious in that they have intersts in overbuilt areas, and if the system were fully transparent, there would be no way for RCI to put their thumb on the scales as they do for some of those areas with RCI Points.  Yes, there would still be some aggravation with exact number systems and ''hanging points'' instead of clean week for week trades, trading within a range, but that might be okay if the system were fully transparent.  

In short, I could support either a fully opaque system (as long as conflicts of interest were removed) or a fully transparent system, but absolutely not a halfway transparent system that just invites fudging the numbers.





"Roger" said:


> Just as a side note, from my perspective, the single biggest issue that we have been at odds at is whether RCI should keep trade values secret.  You sided with RCI.  I think that the most corrupt part of timesharing (and there are a number) is that fact that developers are able to sell two bedroom, gold crown weeks in October and April for $20,000 or more with the promise that they have good trade value.  I cannot write this off as an incidental problem.  How often have we seen posts from newbies saying that they have an ongoing search for a summer week, a Disney, etc. and can't understand why they are not getting results?  ("I deposited a two bedroom, Gold Crown...") Politely telling these people that they spent $20,000 for something of little value is not pleasant.  The fact that this will apparently come to an end (the original post in this thread) is single biggest step that could be taken to clean up timesharing.  (Not that there aren't others.)


----------



## rickandcindy23

I have been able to take advantage of two low-point exchanges, one for this past summer at Grand Pacific Palisades, Carlsbad, CA, and the second is coming up for 4/11/2010, Cypress Pointe 3 bedroom for 7,500 points.  Both awesome trades.  

Our son is so grateful for the April week, because his girlfriend is having to go to Orlando for a business trip, and he could be the bigshot and get the great place to stay (he is on our RCI membership).  He loves that it is just a few blocks from Twistee Treat.  That amenity alone makes it one of my favorite resorts.


----------



## timeos2

rickandcindy23 said:


> I have been able to take advantage of two low-point exchanges, one for this past summer at Grand Pacific Palisades, Carlsbad, CA, and the second is coming up for 4/11/2010, Cypress Pointe 3 bedroom for 7,500 points.  Both awesome trades.
> 
> Our son is so grateful for the April week, because his girlfriend is having to go to Orlando for a business trip, and he could be the bigshot and get the great place to stay (he is on our RCI membership).  He loves that it is just a few blocks from Twistee Treat.  That amenity alone makes it one of my favorite resorts.



Great Cindy. And I'm with you on the Twistee Treat - it's good for at least two or three (or more) stops in a given week. It's such a nice walk over in the early evening from the resort. 

See aren't you glad that CPR hasn't thrown RCI to the wolves? We welcome them, II, SFX, VRI, DRI and anyone else that wants to accept our owners time for exchange. Although despite all those choices the actual number of deposits made to any trade company is down at the resort from over 60% at it's peak many years ago to under 40% now.  That means the availability for trade is on a continuous downward trend as more and more owners are using (or renting) their tie at the resort. Overall that is a very positive thing as it means owners are happy, want to use their time and that the trade value is higher as the demand for trades exceeds the available inventory. In fact the RCI utilization for 2008 (no 2009 numbers available yet) was over 98.5%.  That is strong demand.  

Hope they have a great trip.


----------



## Maple_Leaf

*Internal Trading?*

Any idea how this might impact internal trading?  From the RCI weeks disclosure guide, currently:

_...Certain criteria upon which Trading Power is established, as outlined above, may be waived for Members requesting Internal Exchanges...

...Members requesting an Internal Exchange in the season in which that member owns Vacation Ownership may receive priority over other Members who do not own Vacation Ownership at that Home Resort or Home Group...
_


----------



## AwayWeGo

*$11 ?*




timeos2 said:


> See aren't you glad that CPR hasn't thrown RCI to the wolves? We welcome them, II, SFX, VRI, DRI and anyone else that wants to accept our owners time for exchange. Although despite all those choices the actual number of deposits made to any trade company is down at the resort from over 60% at it's peak many years ago to under 40% now.  That means the availability for trade is on a continuous downward trend as more and more owners are using (or renting) their tie at the resort.


And it costs the resort's front office $11 or so any time an owner banks a week with RCI or I-I or SFX or VRI or DRI, etc. ? 

If so, there are 2 ways of thinking about it. 

1.  Non-exchanging owners should not be burdened with that extra expense, which increases their annual maintenance fee payments without providing any direct value to them.  Therefore, any owner who banks a week should have to pay the resort $15 -- i.e., the $11 it costs the resort when a member banks a week, plus $4 in added nuisance fees to cover the cost of collecting the $11 + the $4. 

2.  The roughly $11 each in added administrative costs for banking timeshare weeks is too trifling to be made a separate line item in the budget.  Thus it should be absorbed into the overall administrative overhead costs of operating the timeshare, despite the fact that it minimally raises everybody's maintenance fees, exchangers & non-exchangers alike.  Besides that, even the non-exchangers derive an indirect value just from knowing they have the ability to bank their weeks in the future even if they have not banked for exchange in the past. 

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


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> John, you always want to say Orlando is non-seasonal, but you apparently forget, for example hurricane season.  Orlando, like the overbuilt Canary Islands, have had their developers blessed by an RCI ''red all year'' designation, but both are awash in oversupply in the timeshare exchange systems.
> 
> But lets look at another source, RCI's availibility charts, which are published in their European directory.  These show availibilty in the RCI system (the whole system, as European members have the same availibility as members anywhere else in the system) in various resort areas.  They break it down into four categories from Best availibility, or lots of supply chased by less demand  down to Limited, where demand overwhelms supply.
> 
> Florida shows as a very seasonal area as to supply and demand on RCI's chart.  Two month, February and March, show as having the most limited category of availibility, and three more months have the second most limited category of availibility.  On the other hand, three months have RCI's most open category of availibility and four its second most open.  That adds up to a very seasonal resort area in terms of supply and demand.
> 
> Now lets compare NON-seasonal areas:
> South Africa has all 12 months in the most limited category of availibility.
> Isreal has all 12 months in the most limited category of availibility
> Ireland has all 12 months in the most limited category of availibility
> Mexico has 9 months in the most open category and 3 months in the second most open.
> Finland has 9 months in the most open category and 3 months in the second most open.
> Switzerland has all 12 months in the most limited category of availibility
> Cyprus has all 12 months in the most limited category of availibility
> Tenerife, Canary Islands has 2 months in the most open category of availibility and 10 months in the second most open
> 
> We will see how RCI's new set of numbers stacks up with what it has already published as to supply and demand within its system.  It they don't add up, the books have been cooked.


These figures show supply, not the supply/demand curve.  Orlando has such high supply because there are so many resorts, but Orlando is also very high demand.  Many other areas have demand from certain segments of the market, but Orlando has demand from a larger segment, and a large part of that segment wishes to return more than once.

My own children want to travel all over the world, so they produce demand for most areas, but they also want to return to Orlando every few years.  Everywhere else (save a few choice locations), once they have visited, they are no longer part of the demand equation.  Hawaii has great demand too, but again, most visitors see it as a one time trip, not something they will be doing every 3 or 4 years - at least not to the scale that Orlando has that demand.

And as far as "oversupply" do we know how that is measured?  Sure, a resort has more supply than demand, but unless we know how it is measured it is largely meaningless.  If there are 100 unused weeks at a resort that has 10,000 deposits over the course of the year, that's 1% vacancy.  If another smaller resort has 30 unused weeks, but only 1,000 deposits over the year, it has a lower number of unused units, but is 3% vacant.  Which one has a greater oversupply?

I welcome the changes RCI is apparently offering.  I don't really care how they come up with the prices - nor do I suspect most owners.  What I care about is the value of my weeks, and the value of the weeks I want to trade for.  It really doesn't matter how RCI sets those values and more than it matters how the local grocery store sets the price of the items I buy there.  Some prices are overinflated, and I can choose to purchase those items, or something else at a lower price.  I can pay $4 for a box of Quaker Oatmeal, or I can choose to purchase the store brand for $2.  In some cases, I am choosing lower quality for a $2 savings, and in other cases I'm getting pretty much the same product.  If RCI sets the price for certain units too high, nobody will exchange in.

Perhaps if RCI sets their values the way you think they should be, we might find that some of those "high" demand resorts sit unreserved until the last minute.  If RCI then rents those weeks out for cash, because nobody wanted to pay the high exchange price for them, will you still be upset?  

Christal DeHaan's RCI rented weeks out too - don't you remember?  The only difference was that they rented to members, people who already owned timeshares, and in most cases were not willing to pay very much for those rentals.  In fact, that was one of the "perks" used at many of the resort tours we went on.  Of course, those same salesweasels also touted how you could trade your lowly unit for Hawaii, and rent that out - something that was never allowed under the membership agreement.  

Can we stop trying to hold RCI accountable for the ills of the developers?  It looks like RCI is trying to do the right thing, and create an exchange system that will work for most of us.  It will not be perfect for everyone, but I don't think such a system is possible.  I for one thing we should give the new system a chance.  That doesn't make me an "RCI appoligist" as you like to call several of us, and it doesn't mean I'm defending RCI.  It means I think RCI has had its problems, and should be blamed for its own faults, but others should be held accountable too.


----------



## Carolinian

You don't seem to understand.  Availibility is based on both supply and demand.  Indeed the categories in the previous directory specifically listed the categories under terms like ''Very high demand, limited supply''.  The chart is the same this time, just the categories are described differently.  This edition it is spread through each section of the directory instead of being assembled all at one place.

South Africa has lots of timeshares, some of them quite large.  It may have as many units as Orlando.  The difference is demand.  SA has demand yearround that equals or exceeds supply.

If you indeed care about the value of your unit, then you certainly should care how it is set.  Most informed owners have watched the shenanigans at RCI and don't view them with a lot of trust.  The lawsuit has spread the word on what RCI has been up to.

A grocery store is a false analogy in that it operates as a competitive retail business.  There are other grocery stores handy if you don't like the one you are in.  RCI on the other hand is a quasi-monopoly in that most resorts are not dual affiliated and most resorts have not educated their owners about the independent exchange companies.  Most owners do not know anywhere else to go if they want to exchange.  Second, RCI takes your week in and gives you one out, creating value issues at both points.  Again that is unlike a grocery store until they start letting you bring in carrots and trade them in or potatoes.  Very, very different situation!

Curiously, you yourself set out a scenario on how RCI can manipulate numbers to produce inventory for their rental operation.  It is just such conflicts of interest that demand that they not set up a halfway transparent system.

Renting weeks to bonafide exchange company members is a far, far different thing than widespread rentals to the general public.

Can we stop whitewashing RCI on all of the things it is doing contrary to the interests of timesharers?  RCI produced materials that promoted the 45 day window and provided those to developers.  Yes, sales weasels do some crappy things, but RCI is far from lilly white.  They were a big part of building a system that they then kicked the props out from under.  The new system is not about helping members, it is about new revenue streams for RCI itself.  Watch them offer those needed extra points - at a price!  They are diverting 45 day window inventory to Points members, which is a fraud upon their Weeks members.




Mel said:


> These figures show supply, not the supply/demand curve.  Orlando has such high supply because there are so many resorts, but Orlando is also very high demand.  Many other areas have demand from certain segments of the market, but Orlando has demand from a larger segment, and a large part of that segment wishes to return more than once.
> 
> My own children want to travel all over the world, so they produce demand for most areas, but they also want to return to Orlando every few years.  Everywhere else (save a few choice locations), once they have visited, they are no longer part of the demand equation.  Hawaii has great demand too, but again, most visitors see it as a one time trip, not something they will be doing every 3 or 4 years - at least not to the scale that Orlando has that demand.
> 
> And as far as "oversupply" do we know how that is measured?  Sure, a resort has more supply than demand, but unless we know how it is measured it is largely meaningless.  If there are 100 unused weeks at a resort that has 10,000 deposits over the course of the year, that's 1% vacancy.  If another smaller resort has 30 unused weeks, but only 1,000 deposits over the year, it has a lower number of unused units, but is 3% vacant.  Which one has a greater oversupply?
> 
> I welcome the changes RCI is apparently offering.  I don't really care how they come up with the prices - nor do I suspect most owners.  What I care about is the value of my weeks, and the value of the weeks I want to trade for.  It really doesn't matter how RCI sets those values and more than it matters how the local grocery store sets the price of the items I buy there.  Some prices are overinflated, and I can choose to purchase those items, or something else at a lower price.  I can pay $4 for a box of Quaker Oatmeal, or I can choose to purchase the store brand for $2.  In some cases, I am choosing lower quality for a $2 savings, and in other cases I'm getting pretty much the same product.  If RCI sets the price for certain units too high, nobody will exchange in.
> 
> Perhaps if RCI sets their values the way you think they should be, we might find that some of those "high" demand resorts sit unreserved until the last minute.  If RCI then rents those weeks out for cash, because nobody wanted to pay the high exchange price for them, will you still be upset?
> 
> Christal DeHaan's RCI rented weeks out too - don't you remember?  The only difference was that they rented to members, people who already owned timeshares, and in most cases were not willing to pay very much for those rentals.  In fact, that was one of the "perks" used at many of the resort tours we went on.  Of course, those same salesweasels also touted how you could trade your lowly unit for Hawaii, and rent that out - something that was never allowed under the membership agreement.
> 
> Can we stop trying to hold RCI accountable for the ills of the developers?  It looks like RCI is trying to do the right thing, and create an exchange system that will work for most of us.  It will not be perfect for everyone, but I don't think such a system is possible.  I for one thing we should give the new system a chance.  That doesn't make me an "RCI appoligist" as you like to call several of us, and it doesn't mean I'm defending RCI.  It means I think RCI has had its problems, and should be blamed for its own faults, but others should be held accountable too.


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> ...
> 
> However what is even worse, *the worst of all worlds*, is the halfway transparent system, where they tell you numbers but hide the way they arrive at them.  ......(emphasis added)


The young couple is being sold a two bedroom, Gold Crown unit designated red (an October week).  The sales staff is telling them what a valuable week they have, but when the couple looks at the actual trading power that they would receive, they see that they would not have enough to get the vacations that they want.  In fact, under the new system, they would have to deposit two years of their unit to come close to getting something that they want. BUT (horrors), they do not know how these numbers were arrived at.  All they know is that they it would be a terrible mistake for them to sign up for a mortgage totalling $22,000.

Perhaps, this is not everything that you want, but I can't believe that you would really call this the "worst of all worlds" (much worse than what currently exists). To be honest, I suspect that you just haven't thought this through.  

I'm with Jeannie: "In almost every area of life, people expect to be informed of the price, availability, and delivery time of something they are contemplating acquiring, before committing to engage in the transaction."

I reiterate. I consider revealing the trading power numbers to be a great step toward improving timesharing.  I congratulate Jeannie and Susan for having brought this about.  

Just so that there are no false accusations here, I was not among the naysayers who said that the class action would amount to nothing and certainly not among those who said that all that came from it was a few worthless trickets.  I have been silent about its prospects, but now I celebrate.


----------



## bnoble

> However what is even worse, the worst of all worlds, is the halfway transparent system, where they tell you numbers but hide the way they arrive at them.


RCI will set trade power however they choose to, whether the final value is opaque or transparent.  Given that, I can't see any rational basis for believing that opacity is preferable.



> I was not among the naysayers who said that the class action would amount to nothing


I was.  And I'm ready to admit that I was wrong.


----------



## Carolinian

Again, Roger, I cannot fathom why anyone who says they are for transparency would accept halfway transparency, a system that creates both the motive and the opportunity to fudge the numbers.  A fully transparent system destroys the opportunity to do so, while a fully non-published system destroys the motive.  And as to the sale weasels, they will find a way to lie no matter what you do.  I note that you do not seem concerned that RCI lied in the materials promoting the 45 day window that were part of the sales process, now that they are undermining the 45 day window.  I want not just some numbers, but honest numbers.


----------



## Carolinian

bnoble said:


> RCI will set trade power however they choose to, whether the final value is opaque or transparent.  Given that, I can't see any rational basis for believing that opacity is preferable.



A nonpublished system creates no motive to fudge the numbers.

I see no rational basis for supporting RCI hiding the methodology and data behind the numbers.  Unless, of course, you have an interest in a timeshare in an overbuilt area and are keeping your fingers crossed that they do fudge the numbers to the benefit of your area, as they did in RCI Points.


----------



## bnoble

> A nonpublished system creates no motive to fudge the numbers.


Patently false.  Showing marks on the sales floor "what they can get" happens all the time.

I'm not in favor of artificial manipulation of trade power.  But, most believe it is already happening, even in the current opaque system.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> Again, Roger, I cannot fathom why anyone who says they are for transparency would accept halfway transparency, a system that creates both the motive and the opportunity to fudge the numbers.  A fully transparent system destroys the opportunity to do so, while a fully non-published system destroys the motive.  And as to the sale weasels, they will find a way to lie no matter what you do.  I note that you do not seem concerned that RCI lied in the materials promoting the 45 day window that were part of the sales process, now that they are undermining the 45 day window.  I want not just some numbers, but honest numbers.


First, an opaque system does not eliminate the need or opportunity for fudging the numbers - they tell us we have a trade power, and that it fluctuates, but they must have something to determine what we can get as a trade.  Their system isn't as capricious as some might like to think - we don't call and get a trade based on the whim of whoever answers the phone on any given day (though sometimes it might feel like that).

I don't think it will be possibly to have what you call full transparency, because you want to know every detail that's used to calculate the trade power, and they're not going to tell us that - it's what we call a trade secret. And even if they do, someone will argue about the transparency of the "numbers behind the numbers."  Maybe they give different weight to demand of the individual unit (or unit size), the individual resort, and the resort area, but discover they want to change the weights a bid to recalibrate, because they don't balance quite right.  Someone doesn't like the new change, because it isn't in their favor.  Further, how do you calculate demand when one person gives a list of 10 resorts, and another is willing to take any resort in a given area.  With a currency or points system, they set the price, and people can choose to pay or not - if a given resort costs more, maybe I don't include it in my list, and the demand for the other resorts goes up.  If I add that resort 60 days out because it looks like I won't get a less expensive unit, does my demand for that resort equal my demand for the others?  If I accept a more expensive trade into a larger unit, does that count as demand for the smaller unit which I didn't get, or for the larger unit I finally accepted?  What if I end up in a smaller unit than I wanted?


----------



## Carolinian

bnoble said:


> Patently false.  Showing marks on the sales floor "what they can get" happens all the time.
> 
> I'm not in favor of artificial manipulation of trade power.  But, most believe it is already happening, even in the current opaque system.



Sales weasels will lie no matter what you do.  That is NOT the juncture where honest values are important.  Where they are important is in members getting a fair trade.

The biggest problem is collusion between developers and RCI to artificially inflate numbers for particular resorts, or in some cases resort areas.  I know if happens.  I had someone pretty far up the ladder at Barrier Island Station boast to me about doing that very thing before BIS joined RCI Points, and then when the points tables came out, I saw the result of it.

If the numbers are not published, there is simply no incentive for that to happen. Developers get no sales benefit from something that is not on paper for them to show, so they do not bother The other way to deal with it is to make the whole procedure transparent, including the formula and the data behind it.

While I agree with you it IS probably happening now in RCI Weeks, that is due to another reason, and that is the massive conflict of interest that exists when RCI is engaged in a massive rental program to the general public.   That creates a huge incentive for RCI to cheat, which would not be there except for the rental program.  Indeed, given that rental program, I would say that the most customer friendly approaches, in order, would be 1) fully published, including formula and data, 2) fully non-published, and 3) half way published.  Of course, RCI still has not said how they are going to do it and we can keep our fingers crossed for 1, but seeing the way RCI has operated in the past few years, I suspect it will be 3.

I still cannot fathom why RCI's defenders are going to the mat to defend their prospective failure to FULLY and COMPLETELY make the system transparent.  They say they want transparency, but pooh-poohing the single most important part of it really makes me wonder.


----------



## Carolinian

The place where numbers get fudged most often is developers politicking RCI for higher numbers than they deserve.  We have seen with RCI Points numbers that it happens in a half-way published system.  It will happen again with RCI Weeks if that, too, is half-way transparent.

Developers get nothing useful to them by pressuring RCI for higher trade power in a non-published system, as they have nothing they can use for sales.  It is much easier just to lie, as they usually do anyway than to go to the trouble of politicking RCI.

RCI used to say its trading power numbers were a trade secret but are now backing off of that.  With their doing so, there is really little reason left for them to hide either the formula or the data behind it.  Any other exchange company's data is certain to be different, so there is no point to hiding it, except to fudge the numbers.

RCI has two other huge intenal conflicts of interest that make a fully published system essential to get honest numbers.  One is its rental program.  The other is its common ownership with two major timeshare developers.  Given RCI's shananigans in recent years, they simply cannot be trusted, given these huge conflicts of interest, to come out with a fair and objective set of numbers unless everything is in the daylight.

Maybe the solution is to really toughen up the existing state timeshare disclosure laws and compel this quasi-monopoly to disclose these matters.



Mel said:


> First, an opaque system does not eliminate the need or opportunity for fudging the numbers - they tell us we have a trade power, and that it fluctuates, but they must have something to determine what we can get as a trade.  Their system isn't as capricious as some might like to think - we don't call and get a trade based on the whim of whoever answers the phone on any given day (though sometimes it might feel like that).
> 
> I don't think it will be possibly to have what you call full transparency, because you want to know every detail that's used to calculate the trade power, and they're not going to tell us that - it's what we call a trade secret. And even if they do, someone will argue about the transparency of the "numbers behind the numbers."  Maybe they give different weight to demand of the individual unit (or unit size), the individual resort, and the resort area, but discover they want to change the weights a bid to recalibrate, because they don't balance quite right.  Someone doesn't like the new change, because it isn't in their favor.  Further, how do you calculate demand when one person gives a list of 10 resorts, and another is willing to take any resort in a given area.  With a currency or points system, they set the price, and people can choose to pay or not - if a given resort costs more, maybe I don't include it in my list, and the demand for the other resorts goes up.  If I add that resort 60 days out because it looks like I won't get a less expensive unit, does my demand for that resort equal my demand for the others?  If I accept a more expensive trade into a larger unit, does that count as demand for the smaller unit which I didn't get, or for the larger unit I finally accepted?  What if I end up in a smaller unit than I wanted?


----------



## skimble

Carolinian said:


> The place where numbers get fudged most often is developers politicking RCI for higher numbers than they deserve.  We have seen with RCI Points numbers that it happens in a half-way published system.  It will happen again with RCI Weeks if that, too, is half-way transparent.
> 
> Developers get nothing useful to them by pressuring RCI for higher trade power in a non-published system, as they have nothing they can use for sales.  It is much easier just to lie, as they usually do anyway than to go to the trouble of politicking RCI.
> 
> RCI used to say its trading power numbers were a trade secret but are now backing off of that.  With their doing so, there is really little reason left for them to hide either the formula or the data behind it.  Any other exchange company's data is certain to be different, so there is no point to hiding it, except to fudge the numbers.
> 
> RCI has two other huge intenal conflicts of interest that make a fully published system essential to get honest numbers.  One is its rental program.  The other is its common ownership with two major timeshare developers.  Given RCI's shananigans in recent years, they simply cannot be trusted, given these huge conflicts of interest, to come out with a fair and objective set of numbers unless everything is in the daylight.
> 
> Maybe the solution is to really toughen up the existing state timeshare disclosure laws and compel this quasi-monopoly to disclose these matters.



This thread is getting long, and root issue has spread too wide to fully address each attribute.  
I'd like to start a new thread pertaining to this:
(Merge if you want, but I think it's time to branch out.)  

Will RCI offer the ability to appeal the credit rating of a given week?


----------



## Carolinian

I expect this system will create quite a scramble at the floating week resorts. Now all the exchangers, not just the informed ones, will know which the best trading weeks are, and everybody will be after the same weeks.  Those are almost certainly the most desired weeks for the own-to-use members as well.  Since own-to-use members tend to dominate HOA BOD's and HOA annual meetings, I suspect we will see them deal with the scramble by asserting first rights to those weeks.  Some resorts have done this by bulkbanking, and they usually do not offer the exchange companies the best weeks.  I am glad my main weeks are fixed weeks.


----------



## skimble

"Roger" said:


> skimple,
> 
> Obviously we are going to disagree over blue weeks.  Personally I think the whole issue belongs in a separate thread.  If you would like to discuss it more, I would be happy to open one up.
> 
> It is your next post that interests me at the moment.  I confess that I did not understand it at all.  I have inserted some comments, but maybe they are not even relavant.  As I said, the post puzzled me...
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by skimble
> Also, it was said, a blue week is worth the value of a last minute deposit.
> 
> I am not sure what comment you are targeting - there have been so many comments about the value of blue weeks.
> 
> 1. You have to be a Points week owners to benefit from this.
> 
> Yes and no. Yes, you have to be a Points member to benefit from the 9000 (sometimes 7500 point) rule. These weeks, however, show up in an online search of what is currently available within the Weeks system, they have not been set aside exclusively for the use of Points owners. (In other words, they are still available to Weeks owners - that includes both the good weeks and the fairly worthless ones.)
> 
> I presume that, since some (many, most?) of these weeks have little values, they can also be seen by blue week owners.
> 
> (As an aside, the fact that they are not all available to blue week owners seems to discredit the idea that behind the secret curtain of the Weeks system, value is solely decided by the dynamic forces of supply and demand. If that were true, given the lack of demand, the value of all of them should have fallen to something that would be available to blue week owners. Who knows how the secret system works.)
> 
> 2. IF you are a Points owner, you have to do a PFD. If your resort week is already affiliated with RCI Points, you cannot do PFD. You have to pay the $3K for conversion.
> 
> The opening sentence is the comment that totally baffled me. Suppose I have 75,000 points and use 40,000 for a March vacation at Hilton Head. (This can be done purely within Points.) I still have 35,000 points to use, perhaps toward some 9000 point exchanges. Why do I have to do a PDF? (I am completley missing your point?)
> 
> 3. Who would pay $600 for 9000 points, knowing that these points are 1/5th the value of anything decent? Your answer to this should tell you: The people who KNOW the absolute value of their week will have NO RESALE value (not that they had much before, but at least they could give it away on premise that their buyer could exchange.) They'll also have no intrinsic value, and this will severely hurt ALL resorts (except politically charged management companies, and mini-systems.)
> 
> I take your point (again, perhaps mistaken) to be why would I pay $600 in maitenance fees, do a PDF, and then only get a low value exchange for my fees? (If that is what you are asking??), the answer is that for the $600 maintence fees and a PDF, I could easily deposit somewhere between 38,000 and 56,000 points into my Points account. That would pay for something like five 9000 point exchanges. Add in the exchange fees, the total cost for five exchanges would be about $1450. That puts the daily cost of staying in a timeshare at about $41.
> 
> Is it worth it? I have never done it (any 9000 exchange), but others suggest that this is the way to go. They think it is.



Roger, This thread has moved So quickly, and there are so many things to respond to, it's hard to dedicate the time to the discussion.  I think it was you who said a blue week is worth about 9000 points, and that's about what they should get out of it.  With a blue, they could have the opportunity to exchange for a last minute week using the value of 9K.  
This is what I'm refuting.  
To get this value, you'd have to be a part of the Points system.  And, that requires an account, PFD, etc.   
I don't have a lot of time to type a full explanation....
My whole point is... 
The timeshare industry NEEDS resorts.  Maintaining the health of resorts meand you must have maintenance fee paying owners.  Systems with floating weeks are going to weather this new system well.  THEY will exercise a flat credit rating for ALL of their deposits (and this will be a political move to protect and level out all the floating week values... they want to avoid the competition for summer weeks for deposit.)  The mini-systems... they're safe too-- for the same reason.  
The fixed week resorts are the ones who will suffer.  The fee-paying owners of low-value weeks will walk away.   I don't know; maybe this is part of a bigger plan.  After 5 years, when resorts start to crumble, Wyndham will be able to come in and purchase them, reissue timeshare sales in the resort under a floating system and induct them in to the mini system.  I don't know if it's a Plan; I do know it will be a consequence-- intended or not.   
When half the weeks in a resort lose their value, resorts will lose their dues paying owners.  
RCI can still change and not have this impact.  They just need to maintain the 45 day trade window.  It's not a huge concession, but it's just enough to keep our blue week owners paying their fees. 

(I typed it fast... hope it makes sense this times.)


----------



## skimble

Carolinian said:


> I expect this system will create quite a scramble at the floating week resorts. Now all the exchangers, not just the informed ones, will know which the best trading weeks are, and everybody will be after the same weeks.  Those are almost certainly the most desired weeks for the own-to-use members as well.  Since own-to-use members tend to dominate HOA BOD's and HOA annual meetings, I suspect we will see them deal with the scramble by asserting first rights to those weeks.  Some resorts have done this by bulkbanking, and they usually do not offer the exchange companies the best weeks.  I am glad my main weeks are fixed weeks.



You won't be glad your main weeks are fixed.  Like I said above, the floating week resorts will negotiate with RCI for a fixed credit assignment for every week--- to avoid this competetition.  
The fixed week owners are going to suffer with increased fees.... to help offset the loss of dues-paying owners.  When the blue week owners see no value in their ownership, they will drop-- faster than they already are in this economy.  And prime fixed week owners will absoarb those increased costs.


----------



## Carolinian

I don't see that happening for one simple reason.  Values out will also be values in.  The result of the average you talk about would be cheap prices for prime weeks for people trading in, but high credit requirements for off season weeks, which would make it harder for RCI to offload them.

Also, these floating week resorts exist in the same resort areas as fixed week resort.  It is really not practical to set a different set of numbers for weeks at a floating week resort than for the very same weeks at a fixed week resort in the same area.

What will happen a lot more is what some of them already do, and that is bulkbank and make exchanger owners have to put up with whatever the resort chooses to deposit for them in the bulkbanking.  But many of them won't know that there is even a problem until the first year's train wreck.





skimble said:


> You won't be glad your main weeks are fixed.  Like I said above, the floating week resorts will negotiate with RCI for a fixed credit assignment for every week--- to avoid this competetition.
> The fixed week owners are going to suffer with increased fees.... to help offset the loss of dues-paying owners.  When the blue week owners see no value in their ownership, they will drop-- faster than they already are in this economy.  And prime fixed week owners will absoarb those increased costs.


----------



## skimble

Carolinian said:


> I don't see that happening for one simple reason.  Values out will also be values in.  The result of the average you talk about would be cheap prices for prime weeks for people trading in, but high credit requirements for off season weeks, which would make it harder for RCI to offload them.
> 
> Also, these floating week resorts exist in the same resort areas as fixed week resort.  It is really not practical to set a different set of numbers for weeks at a floating week resort than for the very same weeks at a fixed week resort in the same area.
> 
> What will happen a lot more is what some of them already do, and that is bulkbank and make exchanger owners have to put up with whatever the resort chooses to deposit for them in the bulkbanking.  But many of them won't know that there is even a problem until the first year's train wreck.



True... And, RCI will be left with a glut of prime week inventory that they may just be forced to offload in the rental market.  

If they bulkbank, and RCI assigns differing credit values for a banked week, people will clamor.  Management will negotiate, politics will prevail.  

Last May, I asked my wife to deposit a July week at the Welk into our II account.  She called the Welk directly.  They "did her a favor" and deposited a week that's further out to "preserve trade value."  We got a September week, and it's worthless.  Values would be more transparent, and this sort of thing would not happen as easily.  My wife would have been able to see the trade value differential and she could have raised hell right away.


----------



## Mel

There could be issues with bulk banking, but that could be mitigated by early bulk banking.  If RCI provides enough of an incentive to bank early, then early banking of a swing-season week could offset the extra value of a high season week.

Most savvy owners will call 1 year out (or first available date) and request a deposit or reservation, but the majority of owners won't do that.  If they call in January, the early septemeber week at nearly full value may be worth just as much as the July week deposited only 6 months out.  Exchangers from floating week resorts have always been at the mercy of resport policies regarding banking.  Perhaps this new system will make THOSE systems more transparent, and those owners might take an interest in changing resort policies to something more fair.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Week-Credits Seem Something Like Super-Points.*




timeos2 said:


> What that means is no more secret values. Instead each and every week will get a known value when you deposit - and what you want to get will also have a known value. This is a major breakthrough. It will finally give members a way to know what they have and what it will cost to get what they want. It is NOT another points systems (trades will remain as 7 days). It will have other features.
> 
> - Consolidating.  The resort you deposit is worth 40 on the trade scale. The one you want (one of the best, highest demand in the system as we all seem to desire) demands 55. Yo can take  a combined value of another week to reach the 55.
> 
> - Change back. You are the lucky owner who deposits a high value time worth 50 on the scale. You can travel in off season or can use a smaller unit at only 20. You get the "change back" (30 credits) for future trades.


Let's see how long it takes them to offer WCFPD _-- Weeks Credits For Points Deposit --_ basically just something like _Reverse PFD_. 

Points members reverse-deposit their _points_ timeshare(s) into the newly transparent _weeks_ system (for a small fee) & receive the appropriate number of Weeks Credits which they can use for straight-weeks exchanges. 

Is this a great country or what ? 

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


----------



## Carolinian

From what someone on another site has seen of the numbers for his resort. the magic time to deposit under the new system is 275 days (9 months) out, rather than the 6 month and 1 year trip wires in the current system.  It is unclear if there will be any benefit at all to depositing earlier than that.

And as to a July week at a beach resort, it will always be worth more at 6 months than a September week at 1 year.  Granted the gap will be narrowed somewhat.




Mel said:


> There could be issues with bulk banking, but that could be mitigated by early bulk banking.  If RCI provides enough of an incentive to bank early, then early banking of a swing-season week could offset the extra value of a high season week.
> 
> Most savvy owners will call 1 year out (or first available date) and request a deposit or reservation, but the majority of owners won't do that.  If they call in January, the early septemeber week at nearly full value may be worth just as much as the July week deposited only 6 months out.  Exchangers from floating week resorts have always been at the mercy of resport policies regarding banking.  Perhaps this new system will make THOSE systems more transparent, and those owners might take an interest in changing resort policies to something more fair.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> From what someone on another site has seen of the numbers for his resort. the magic time to deposit under the new system is 275 days (9 months) out, rather than the 6 month and 1 year trip wires in the current system.  It is unclear if there will be any benefit at all to depositing earlier than that.
> 
> And as to a July week at a beach resort, it will always be worth more at 6 months than a September week at 1 year.  Granted the gap will be narrowed somewhat.


If that is the case (it very well could be), perhaps RCI showing the numjbers will convince owners to start looking at the way their resorts are managed.  RCI never treated those deposits the same, and never pretended to - it is only the resorts that pretended they were the same.

If enough owners band together, perhaps they can change the way the resorts assign the weeks - I'm sure it will take a fight, but the first step is just getting them to realize there is a problem.


----------



## "Roger"

I guess I am a bit lost here.  What stops them from doing what they do in the Points systems (and other point systems have done):  Give the owner of a floating week a weighted average of the number of points over which their week floats.  I don't know how they work this out to ensure that the correct worth of weeks goes from the resort to RCI, but they have done it for years (as have other point systems).


----------



## Carolinian

"Roger" said:


> I guess I am a bit lost here.  What stops them from doing what they do in the Points systems (and other point systems have done):  Give the owner of a floating week a weighted average of the number of points over which their week floats.  I don't know how they work this out to ensure that the correct worth of weeks goes from the resort to RCI, but they have done it for years (as have other point systems).



RCI Points takes in your week as a deposit unless you take action soon enough to keep it.  It is sort of the book of the month system.  That creates more of an assurance that they will get the week.  A weeks system, however, requires a positive action by the owner to deposit it.  A weaker trading power from this blended number will encourage floating week owners to do something other than give it to RCI.  Maybe reserve a high value week and give it to SFX, for instance.


----------



## Mel

If that does happen, perhaps RCI will then have the incentive to encourage resorts to stop the bulk banking.  As it is now, they're not getting the best weeks, and maybe the only way they can get the better weeks is to get their members to convince their home resorts to change they way they handle deposits.

Even SFX has to confirm the deposits with the host resorts - if owners start moving to the other exchange companies, what's to stop the host resorts from insisting the weeks can't be used to exchange through them either.  If the resorts don't keep owners from depositing with other exchange companies, then RCI would have some sway in demanding they recongnize deposits to RCI that way as well.  That would be in RCI best interest as well as the best interest of their members.  So maybe something good can come out of this.  Maybe that will be part of why the Wyndham deposits will be usable online - because they will tell the members exactly how many "points" they have, and not rely on some generic trade power.


----------



## Carolinian

Every HOA I have ever been familiar with is firmly in the hands of the members who own to use.  That is also who predominantly shows up at the annual HOA meetings.  If push comes to shove over everyone wanting the same weeks, the own to use members interests are going to come first, and exchangers second at most resorts.  It might surprise you how many HOA boards do not even have a board member who is a member of any exchange company.




Mel said:


> If that does happen, perhaps RCI will then have the incentive to encourage resorts to stop the bulk banking.  As it is now, they're not getting the best weeks, and maybe the only way they can get the better weeks is to get their members to convince their home resorts to change they way they handle deposits.
> 
> Even SFX has to confirm the deposits with the host resorts - if owners start moving to the other exchange companies, what's to stop the host resorts from insisting the weeks can't be used to exchange through them either.  If the resorts don't keep owners from depositing with other exchange companies, then RCI would have some sway in demanding they recongnize deposits to RCI that way as well.  That would be in RCI best interest as well as the best interest of their members.  So maybe something good can come out of this.  Maybe that will be part of why the Wyndham deposits will be usable online - because they will tell the members exactly how many "points" they have, and not rely on some generic trade power.


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> RCI Points takes in your week as a deposit unless you take action soon enough to keep it. ...


 Admittedly, that is the normal way thing proceed.  At my resort, however, I have to request that a week be deposited into my Points account.  I get the weighted average number of points over which my week floats and somehow RCI gets a set of weeks that average out to the same.  So, even in a system where owners themselves bank weeks, things can be worked out.  Let us just write this off an anomoly, however, and consider the broader issue of whether floating week and fixed week owners can coexist in a points system.  (This is where the discussion started.)

Blue Green (not RCI) has points, and, both fixed week and floating week owners.  I have never seen any complaints from fixed weeks owners that they are getting shortchanged.  So, I have yet to see why a mixture of fixed and floating week owners is going to be an Achilles heel for the new system.  (... and here I freely admit that maybe I am just too dense.)



Carolinian said:


> ...  A weaker trading power from this blended number will encourage floating week owners to do something other than give it to RCI.  Maybe reserve a high value week and give it to SFX, for instance.


This is the part that really interested me.  

Putting numbers on what Carolinian is saying, a floating week might include a period of time (high red season) where RCI would value the unit at a 48.  If a floating week owner were only given a 45 for a deposit (because the owner is being given a weighted average of the the value of his week for the entire time over which the floating week ranges), owners might migrate to another company such as SFX.  

What interests me is the dog that did not bark (what is not being said).  Under the current veil of secrecy system, some owners get trading power worth a 48 while other owners with _the very same maintenence fees,  deed, the whole nine yards _get a 42. (Not a 45, but a 42!)  Apparently, we are told, if the veil of secrecy is lifted so that people were to see how they are being treated, then in this system which works so well (sorry, a little sarcasm) might collapse.

What a sad commentary on timesharing.  

While we are currently discussing a relatively minor issue (the value given to a floating week upon deposit), it represents to me how timesharing used to work.  There was this veil of secrecy.  Some owners were able to figure out the system and get something over and above what they paid for, but (the dog that did not bark) always at the expense of other owners who ended up getting less.  It is this wonderful system of some owners getting value at the expense of others (with secrecy playing a key role) that needs to be defended with every argument we can muster.

Maybe I am just too moralistic for timesharing.  I have repeatedly said that it is the dirtiest enterprise that I have ever been associated with.  No, I don't bemoan efforts for more openess. 

[As an aside, when I first started timesharing, I asked some people who owned Marriotts about why they were so fond of them.  From what I could see, they usually paid about thirty to fourty percent more for them that what they could have paid for non-branded units of the same quality.  Then, in addition, their maintenence fees were usually ten to twenty percent higher year after year.  The response I got (not just once, but from several owners) was "Yes, but if I trade Marriotts for Marriotts, I know that I will always be treated fairly." What do you think these people's view was of timesharing as it used to exist in the good old days?]


----------



## skimble

"Roger" said:


> Maybe I am just too moralistic for timesharing.  I have repeatedly said that it is the dirtiest enterprise that I have ever been associated with.  No, I don't bemoan efforts for more openess.
> 
> [As an aside, when I first started timesharing, I asked some people who owned Marriotts about why they were so fond of them.  From what I could see, they usually paid about thirty to fourty percent more for them that what they could have paid for non-branded units of the same quality.  Then, in addition, their maintenence fees were usually ten to twenty percent higher year after year.  The response I got (not just once, but from several owners) was "Yes, but if I trade Marriotts for Marriotts, I know that I will always be treated fairly." What do you think these people's view was of timesharing as it used to exist in the good old days?]



Morality and timesharing... I've often thought about that... it's a dirty industry from top to bottom.  It's like dealing with used cars.  And now, we're going to be able to see what's under the hood... except, it's still subjective.  RCI is assigning subjective value, in much the same way as the blue book assigns value to a vehicle.  
It sounds great to have that value revealed for all to see; I just believe it's Pandora's box.  
With the car analogy, there are many cars that defy blue book values... will RCI have a way to mitigate this?


----------



## Carolinian

For those who gnash their teeth about trades up and the poor guy who gets left out, the system was always balanced in the Crystal deHahn era by developer deposits, which allows a modest amount of genuine trades up without corrupting the system.  Many of the trades up were illusory, to red weeks like hurricane season in the Caribbena that never should in reality have been red in the first place.  I had a personal experience with a hurricane down there as a result of what some would call a ''trade up''.

Since I have been in timesharing I have never obsessed about trades up, down, or sideways.  I looked at where I wanted to go and what was availible there.  Some trades that were perfectly satisfactory to me might have really set off some who obsess about these matters.  I remember one time I really wanted to trade into a German resort, that is no longer with RCI, that had little exchange availibility but was the only timeshare anywhere close to its area.  I put up my 2BR summer holiday oceanfront red week on the OBX and did a search essentially for that resort for a whole year.  What came back was a 1BR blue week, but the timing happened to work out great for my schedule and I was very happy to get any week at a resort that rarely came up.  At that point, I was not educated enough on t/s to try a bait and switch and try to get them to take my blue week deposit instead.  I enjoyed the holiday and have never regretted that ''trade down''.  More recently, when I was looking around online with my tiger trader, a summer week in Europe, I found a 2BR blue week at a UK resort that doesn't come up too often and I really wanted to trade into, that again although a blue week really worked well for my schedule.  Since I am keeping only one week at a time in RCI, I did not have a SA week to use to snag it and debated trying to get another weaker deposit in.  In the end, I decided not to risk it and did the trade with my tiger trader.  Again, I did not get upset about a ''trade down''.  I got a week where I wanted to go at a time that worked very well for me.  And no I have no interest in the bureaucratic garbage of ''change back''.  I figure the trades up and trades down even out in the long run.  The main thing is going where I want to go at times that work well for me.  Those who obsess about whether a trade is up, down, or sideways, I think miss some of the enjoyment of timesharing.


----------



## Mel

On some level I agree - who cares about change back?  But, giving change back is what allows for a "trade down" to be balanced by a "trade up."  Otherwise, RCI has to set a reasonable range in which trades can be made.  You can trade into anything up to 10% more than the value of your own week - but then with a published value, there are plenty of people who, trying to get the "most" out of their timeshares, will always insist on that extra 10%, leaving someone else to settle for less than what they put in (in order for the whole system to balance).

By giving change, RCI is encouraging more people to trade the way you do (and the way I have sometimes as well).  They will accept what might be percieved as a trade down (and maybe even consider it a bargain), knowing they will have extra points for something special on their next trade.  Remember that the majority of timeshare exchangers paid developer prices for their weeks, and drank the kool-ade.  Many of them, unless they're looking for something specific, they're going to be looking for perception of value.  Even if they are looking for a specific area or resort, without change back, they're going to take the "best" of what's available to them, and unless they have a reliable source of information saying otherwise, the points assigned to the exchange will determine what's best.  In a week-for-week system without change back, that 3BR unit doesn't cost any more than the 1BR, so why accept the 1BR if you're offered the 3BR?


----------



## "Roger"

I am glad that things have worked out well for you, Steve, and that your trades have evened out.  (I am not being sarcastic.)  For some (and they have freely admitted this), the whole thrill of timesharing has been to trade up each and every time.  They weep that those days seem to be disappearing.  For others, it has not always worked out that well.  They have not gotten both good trades and lesser ones, just lesser ones.  These lesser trades  did not always have charm either.  Lest we forget (from the TUG homepage, recounting an experience from way back):

_Why was TUG formed? 

Hi, I'm Bill Rogers. I initiated TUG because my wife and I traded our very nice (Gold Crown & 5 Star rating) resort for what can only be described as a run-down converted motel. To say that we were upset, is to put it mildly. 

The picture in the Exchange Resort Directory looked great! The description had everything we were looking for, even tennis. But when we got there...... The condo was probably WW II vintage and still had the original furniture (I have seen better thrown away on the street). But the straw that broke the camel's back was the tennis court (we love tennis and all our trades usually have tennis available). The only court was over grown with weeds and did not even have a net!) When we asked about it, we were told it had not had a net for years! So much for Resort Directory pictures and write-ups! We vowed we would never be ripped off again! From that time on, when we are in an area (and have time) we tour the timeshare resorts to find out what they are really like. We will no longer rely only on the Exchange companies for this information! 

During our vacations, we found that most timeshare owners feel the same way. So, with the help of other timeshare owners, we have formed the Timeshare Users Group. We invite you to join us in this organization. The more members we have, the better the quality of information. Currently our BBS online forums has more than 40,000 other owners just like you!  (previous versions of the TUGBBS forums over the past 15+ years have had hundreds of thousands of timeshare owners as well!) 

By the way, the exchange company did credit us with their exchange fee ($69) to be used toward another exchange. What a joke! We lost a week's vacation, not to mention, the hundreds of dollars in maintenance fees we had to pay at our home resort._


----------



## Mel

Ive been thinking about what many here seem to want in a new system, and what RCI might be in a position to deliver (and what they might be willing to deliver).

I've decided this is what I want, and why:

I like the option of borrowing points, and credit for excess points.  I also think limiting this to use based on the number of weeks deposited is a good idea, because it still maintains the week-for-week aspect of the exchange system.

If I own a 100 point week, and only use 9 points for a last-minute bargain, I still have 91 points, can't use them for 10 more weeks, but have to apply them to other weeks - leaving some of those lower value weeks for others.  I see that as having two effects:

1 - it gives everyone the same "discount" as an incentive to reserve the surplus weeks.

2 - at the same time, it limits that incentive so there might be more available for the blue week (and other low value) owners.

I like the idea of publishing the value of the weeks online - what Carolinian calls transparency.  It allows us all to know the real value of our own week compared to others in the system.  

I like the idea of truly dynamic values, but that may come in conflict with publishing values, and how they will be used in sales. What values will be published in sales materials used by the resorts, and how accurate will they be?  

While I can see some value in publishing the "numbers behind the numbers" I think that value will be limited, if the system remains as dynamic as the current "secret" system.  If the value of a given week can fluctuate on a daily basis, it will have to be based on a "snapshot" of the system when the week is deposited or requested.

Carolinian argues that status (gold crown, RID, etc) drives demand, even when most people don't know the numbers behind the status.  I think these trade values will have similar effect, driving both supply and demand.  If people don't like the number RCI assigns, they won't deposit.  For those fortunate enough to be members here, or on similar forums, those numbers combined with reviews could have a dramatic effect. 

Currently weeks members exchanging into NC Outer Banks who see availability at multiple resorts see one piece of significant information - resort status.  Now they will see a different cost (not simply giving up their week), for each resort.  Perhaps if BIS Kitty Hawk costs more, they will want to know why, and make a more informed decision.  Back before RCI Points, BIS used to market their weeks as being so valuable that RCI offered a bonus week for deposited them (we all know those were not really bonus weeks from RCI, but excess developer inventory shifted to those members' account).  Perhaps the reason Kitty Hawk owners get more points is that BIS is still depositing an "extra" developer week with each deposit, and the points they're getting are really the value of both weeks.  Doesn't truly explain why they're charging the full amount to trade in, but who knows.  

Maybe with this new system we will be able to track the value of certain weeks in the system and their availability, and see how supply and demand are driving those values - for those resorts where there seems to be an endless supply of weeks sitting unreserved, does that value go down over time?  

Now that I'm thinking about it, I do see one other real value - the whole idea of reserving with one week and then reconfirming with a less valuable week.  Now we can reserve with our "oldest week" even if it doesn't have the necessary trade power, but taking some value from another week.  In essence it does provide more value to those weeks, because we're less likely to let them expire unused.  Even for that blue week owner who doesn't seem to see anything of interest, this opens up more possibilities.


----------



## Carolinian

For most but not all exchangers into a beach area, the most significant piece of information they see is not award status, but location.  Is the resort on the beach or not?  That is the key question.  Similarly in an urban resort, the key question is whether it is close to the sights or not.  Thus in London, Allen House, which is a Hospitality resort but in central London is far more desirable to most people than Odessa Wharf, a gold crown but way out in the Docklands (aka boondocks).




Mel said:


> Ive been thinking about what many here seem to want in a new system, and what RCI might be in a position to deliver (and what they might be willing to deliver).
> 
> I've decided this is what I want, and why:
> 
> I like the option of borrowing points, and credit for excess points.  I also think limiting this to use based on the number of weeks deposited is a good idea, because it still maintains the week-for-week aspect of the exchange system.
> 
> If I own a 100 point week, and only use 9 points for a last-minute bargain, I still have 91 points, can't use them for 10 more weeks, but have to apply them to other weeks - leaving some of those lower value weeks for others.  I see that as having two effects:
> 
> 1 - it gives everyone the same "discount" as an incentive to reserve the surplus weeks.
> 
> 2 - at the same time, it limits that incentive so there might be more available for the blue week (and other low value) owners.
> 
> I like the idea of publishing the value of the weeks online - what Carolinian calls transparency.  It allows us all to know the real value of our own week compared to others in the system.
> 
> I like the idea of truly dynamic values, but that may come in conflict with publishing values, and how they will be used in sales. What values will be published in sales materials used by the resorts, and how accurate will they be?
> 
> While I can see some value in publishing the "numbers behind the numbers" I think that value will be limited, if the system remains as dynamic as the current "secret" system.  If the value of a given week can fluctuate on a daily basis, it will have to be based on a "snapshot" of the system when the week is deposited or requested.
> 
> Carolinian argues that status (gold crown, RID, etc) drives demand, even when most people don't know the numbers behind the status.  I think these trade values will have similar effect, driving both supply and demand.  If people don't like the number RCI assigns, they won't deposit.  For those fortunate enough to be members here, or on similar forums, those numbers combined with reviews could have a dramatic effect.
> 
> Currently weeks members exchanging into NC Outer Banks who see availability at multiple resorts see one piece of significant information - resort status.  Now they will see a different cost (not simply giving up their week), for each resort.  Perhaps if BIS Kitty Hawk costs more, they will want to know why, and make a more informed decision.  Back before RCI Points, BIS used to market their weeks as being so valuable that RCI offered a bonus week for deposited them (we all know those were not really bonus weeks from RCI, but excess developer inventory shifted to those members' account).  Perhaps the reason Kitty Hawk owners get more points is that BIS is still depositing an "extra" developer week with each deposit, and the points they're getting are really the value of both weeks.  Doesn't truly explain why they're charging the full amount to trade in, but who knows.
> 
> Maybe with this new system we will be able to track the value of certain weeks in the system and their availability, and see how supply and demand are driving those values - for those resorts where there seems to be an endless supply of weeks sitting unreserved, does that value go down over time?
> 
> Now that I'm thinking about it, I do see one other real value - the whole idea of reserving with one week and then reconfirming with a less valuable week.  Now we can reserve with our "oldest week" even if it doesn't have the necessary trade power, but taking some value from another week.  In essence it does provide more value to those weeks, because we're less likely to let them expire unused.  Even for that blue week owner who doesn't seem to see anything of interest, this opens up more possibilities.


----------



## skimble

Mel said:


> Ive been thinking about what many here seem to want in a new system, and what RCI might be in a position to deliver (and what they might be willing to deliver).
> 
> I've decided this is what I want, and why:
> 
> I like the option of borrowing points, and credit for excess points.  I also think limiting this to use based on the number of weeks deposited is a good idea, because it still maintains the week-for-week aspect of the exchange system.
> 
> If I own a 100 point week, and only use 9 points for a last-minute bargain, I still have 91 points, can't use them for 10 more weeks, but have to apply them to other weeks - leaving some of those lower value weeks for others.  I see that as having two effects:
> 
> 1 - it gives everyone the same "discount" as an incentive to reserve the surplus weeks.
> 
> 2 - at the same time, it limits that incentive so there might be more available for the blue week (and other low value) owners.
> 
> I like the idea of publishing the value of the weeks online - what Carolinian calls transparency.  It allows us all to know the real value of our own week compared to others in the system.
> 
> I like the idea of truly dynamic values, but that may come in conflict with publishing values, and how they will be used in sales. What values will be published in sales materials used by the resorts, and how accurate will they be?
> 
> Now that I'm thinking about it, I do see one other real value - the whole idea of reserving with one week and then reconfirming with a less valuable week.  Now we can reserve with our "oldest week" even if it doesn't have the necessary trade power, but taking some value from another week.  In essence it does provide more value to those weeks, because we're less likely to let them expire unused.  Even for that blue week owner who doesn't seem to see anything of interest, this opens up more possibilities.



While these things work well for me and many others on here.  Like Carolinian said before, he's been content to trade for a location because it was where he wanted to be.  My father has done the same thing... traded a prime Arroyo Roble for a spring Tahoe week.  For him, he will soon be able to see the huge trade differential there.  
There will be unintended consequences.  nobody likes to be ripped off.  Unless we're captive at Disneyland on a hot day, we're not going to pay $10 for a bottle of water.  People are going to see locations that match their desire and forego them based on the difference in value.  And, since most timeshare owners deal with 1, maybe 2 weeks, it's not going to be a decision that's balanced by leftover points or credits in their account.  
Another unintended consequence is the slam in timeshare value.  It's been discussed enough here to be understood pretty well.  All weeks in all resorts need owners who pay their fees, or we'll see delinquencies climb like never before.  And that results in higher fees at those given resorts.  
And, likely, politics is going to muddy everything up.  
Otherwise, it's a decent system.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> For most but not all exchangers into a beach area, the most significant piece of information they see is not award status, but location.  Is the resort on the beach or not?  That is the key question.  Similarly in an urban resort, the key question is whether it is close to the sights or not.  Thus in London, Allen House, which is a Hospitality resort but in central London is far more desirable to most people than Odessa Wharf, a gold crown but way out in the Docklands (aka boondocks).


I agree that "comps" should be just that - comparable.  With a new resort, there are many factors that will ultimately make or break their eventual trade power, as they factor into reports back from exchange guests.  Those cannot be factored in for the initial trade power or award status, because they are unknowns - will the staff be friendly, will maintenance be responsive, will the beds be comfortable.  Will an extablish resort group, they are less likely to be variable, but a certain level of service will be assumed.

Regarding the on-beach vs. off-beach resorts, we just don't know.  Yes, we know that rentals do better on the beach.  But timeshare owners are not the same as renters.  Just read the reviews of most timeshares on the sites open to the general public.  There are number of things "missing" on a timeshare vacation that people rant about, yet they are what we expect - anything from not having daily maid service or room service, to lack of onsite restaurants.  People complain about being asked to run the dishwasher before they leave, or stripping the beds.  I agree about the renters, but I'm not completely sold that timeshare owners prefer on the beach hands down, partly because I don't.  I enjoy being on the beach, but only if _my unit_in on the beach - and even then, that just means people will be walking by my unit all the time.  I do agree certain resorts were not assigned vlues in points that are suspect, but I don't know that publishing the formula for arrivings at those values will make a difference - the formula could be written to favor those resorts.

If you look at the current points tables just for the BIS resorts, you can see what factors drive value:

If you compare Ocean Pines units to Duck, the OP units of the same size are 500 more points across the board.

If you look at different unit sizes at Duck, it is clear the bathrooms are more important than bedrooms.

The top units are 3BR, 2.5 baths sleeps 10 (87,500)
followed by 2BR, 2.5 baths sleeps 8 (73,000)
then 3BR 1.7 baths sleeps 8 (67,000)
2 BR 1.5 baths seelps 6 (52,500)
1 BR 1.5 baths sleeps 4 (38,500)

Within Kitty Hawk, the same applies:

(95,500) 3BR 3 bath sleeps 10 
(87,500) _(Duck 3BR/2.5 BA sleeps 10)_
(86,000) 2BR 2.7 baths sleep 8 
(78,500) 3BR 2.5 baths sleeps 8
(73,000) _(Duck 2BR/2.5 BA sleeps 8)_
(67,000) _(Duck 3BR/1.7 BA sleeps 8)_
(56,000) 2BR 2.0 baths sleeps 6 
(52,500) _Duck 2 BR 1.5 baths sleeps 6_
(46,500) 1BR 1.7 baths sleeps 4
(39,500) 1BR 1.0 bath sleeps 4
(38,500) _Duck 1BR 1.5 bath sleeps 4_

I know when I travel with our kids, we need something that sleeps 6, and I would much prefer my own full bathroom - even at the beach (maybe even more, because the kids need to take regular showers when they swim).  It looks like RCI agrees with me - exchangers want bathrooms.  I don't know if knowing RCI values bathrooms really makes any difference, but I suppose if that disclosure helps make the system appear more fair, go ahead and publish the formula - but be prepared for people to argue whether the formula is fair.  Again, some may find the Ducl 2BR with 1/5 baths fits their needs, while others are willing to pay an extra 3500 points for the extra shower.

BTW, how does RCI show the difference between a unit with(2) 3/4 baths, an another with a full bath and a half bath?


----------



## AFARR

Mel said:


> Snip....
> 
> (95,500) 3BR 3 bath sleeps 10
> (87,500) _(Duck 3BR/2.5 BA sleeps 10)_
> (86,000) 2BR 2.7 baths sleep 8
> (78,500) 3BR 2.5 baths sleeps 8
> (73,000) _(Duck 2BR/2.5 BA sleeps 8)_
> (67,000) _(Duck 3BR/1.7 BA sleeps 8)_
> (56,000) 2BR 2.0 baths sleeps 6
> (52,500) _Duck 2 BR 1.5 baths sleeps 6_
> (46,500) 1BR 1.7 baths sleeps 4
> (39,500) 1BR 1.0 bath sleeps 4
> (38,500) _Duck 1BR 1.5 bath sleeps 4_
> 
> BTW, how does RCI show the difference between a unit with(2) 3/4 baths, an another with a full bath and a half bath?



Actually (if I'm mistaken, hopefully someone can correct it)...some of those "high bathroom" units are actually lock offs vs. non-lock off units....the Duck 87.5k points are a 3 Br Lockoff and the 3 Br. 67k Points are the non lockoff (ditto for the 2 Br. 73k and 52.5k units)....and some of the points are actually the A or B side of the unit.


----------



## skimble

Carolinian (I'm pretty sure it was him) was explaining much further back in this post why RCI will have a glut of prime rentals.    
I was explaining to my wife...  I thought the explanation made sense, so I think I'll share.  
Let's say you're in a game of trading cards...  king for king, queen for queen...  If you want a king, you need a queen and a 2.  If you want a queen, you'll need two 7's.  
People with Kings can settle for less or take kings.  People who have less, will be less inclined to combine two weeks (or double the maintenance fees) to pull a king.  People will combine kings with lower cards to balance out their lower weeks, and settle for mid-range exchanges.  
When people start combining their kings with lower cards, to pull mid-range trades, this will leave a glut of prime kings in the system-- which RCI will offer in rentals.  
One could argue that these will be offset by people who combine credits to pull a king.  I don't believe there will be as many people who will do this.  (double the maintenance fees.)
I don't know if this makes it easier to understand.


----------



## "Roger"

A person holds a ten, takes an eight.  The next two years, using his left over trading power, he takes a jack each year. Etc. Etc.

Please note:  With trading values known, people will be very aware of what they have to spend.  I doubt that they will let things go to waste.  

Now in the current Weeks system, things are different.  RCI has every incentive to get people to trade down slightly.  That allows them to skim kings off the top.  Who is to know that they are doing this?  No one knows that they have been trading down. 

Final note:  Disney has a points system.  Hyatt has a points system.  Bluegreen has a points system.  Hilton has a points system.  Are you suggesting that all of these systems are skimming the kings?


----------



## Mel

skimble said:


> Carolinian (I'm pretty sure it was him) was explaining much further back in this post why RCI will have a glut of prime rentals.
> I was explaining to my wife...  I thought the explanation made sense, so I think I'll share.
> Let's say you're in a game of trading cards...  king for king, queen for queen...  If you want a king, you need a queen and a 2.  If you want a queen, you'll need two 7's.
> People with Kings can settle for less or take kings.  People who have less, will be less inclined to combine two weeks (or double the maintenance fees) to pull a king.  People will combine kings with lower cards to balance out their lower weeks, and settle for mid-range exchanges.
> When people start combining their kings with lower cards, to pull mid-range trades, this will leave a glut of prime kings in the system-- which RCI will offer in rentals.
> One could argue that these will be offset by people who combine credits to pull a king.  I don't believe there will be as many people who will do this.  (double the maintenance fees.)


I don't expect people to combine two 8's or 9's to get that King, expect for those once-in-a-lifetime exchanges such as a trip to Hawaii.

I expect the owner of the Queen to exchange into a King this year, and a Jack the next year.  Next year someone will trade a Jack into the King, using points leftover after he traded into a 9 this year.

The King owner will either trade into other Kings, or maybe combine his King with another "lesser" week to balance out, as you suggest.  He know he's always happy with anything Jack and above, so he can be comfortable purchasing a 10 knowing his two weeks together will pull two units he will find acceptable.  

Also consider that the fees for most of those resorts that will have kings are likely to be fairly high, while many of the 8's won't be as high, so while they are paying double fees, they are not likely to be paying twice as much as the owner of the King.  Further, the buy-in for the King is much higher than the 8's.  The owner of the 8's shouldn't be expecting to stay in a King very frequently, but the new system allows that once-in-a-lifetime exchange into the King.

Maybe to help the owners of the Kings and Queens (and even everybody else) RCI will allow use of the "excess points" for last minute exchanges, without using a "week" in exchange.

Remember that Some people are paying as much as $2000 in maintenance fees each year (or even more), while some are paying as little as $300.  While maintenance fees are somewhat irrelevant because they bear not relation to trade value, they are relevant in that they may play a part in percieved value.  Someone paying $350 maintenance fees might not mind using 2 or even 3 deposits to exchange into a resort where the fees are over $2000 - it's still less than the owner pays, and doesn't require a comittment to pay that much every year.


----------



## bnoble

> People with Kings can settle for less or take kings. People who have less, will be less inclined to combine two weeks (or double the maintenance fees) to pull a king. People will combine kings with lower cards to balance out their lower weeks, and settle for mid-range exchanges.


Except that you don't have to play whole cards.  Suppose I have two jacks.  I can get a king with those, but I get a 9 back to use for something else.  At least, that's my understanding of the system as it has been presented so far.


----------



## skimble

bnoble said:


> Except that you don't have to play whole cards.  Suppose I have two jacks.  I can get a king with those, but I get a 9 back to use for something else.  At least, that's my understanding of the system as it has been presented so far.



That's the part that I'm uncertain about.  If a king is used to trade down, do they get change back?  
So, I trade a king for a jack this year... will I get a 4 back to combine with my 7 next year to get another jack?  Do credits stay in your account until a fair expiration date or until you utilize it?  
If that's the case, the foundation for this is an equitable system.  
However... here's the RCI skepticism... If they give credits back for lesser exchanges, how is RCI going to reep Kings to rent?  I'm wondering where is the added benefit is for RCI?  As a simple exchange company, they have no real incentive to do this.


----------



## skimble

"Roger" said:


> Final note:  Disney has a points system.  Hyatt has a points system.  Bluegreen has a points system.  Hilton has a points system.  Are you suggesting that all of these systems are skimming the kings?




It seems plausible... yes.  If I have 7200 Hilton points, and this represents one king-- a prime 2 bedroom.   But, I choose to trade it for 3 lesser consorts instead, there's two questions that come to mind.  Are there really enough studio owners who choose to combine their points for a trade up (as someone else put it, a "once in a lifetime experience like Hawaii") to balance out the number of people who, as the timeshare salesperson likes to say, "take the platinum week and get 3 weeks out of it."  
In those systems, all the accommodations are of royal quality.  So, a king could basically trade for 3 jacks.  
I don't know the mini-systems well enough to conjecture on this.  But it does, on the face of it, seem that there would be a glut of kings if people actually use the systems the way their "sold" to do so.


----------



## bnoble

> If a king is used to trade down, do they get change back?


So far, the people who have spoken to first-hand sources say you will.  That doesn't mean that they can't be wrong, or that things won't change, but that's my take.


----------



## timeos2

*beauty of a published system*



skimble said:


> It seems plausible... yes.  If I have 7200 Hilton points, and this represents one king-- a prime 2 bedroom.   But, I choose to trade it for 3 lesser consorts instead, there's two questions that come to mind.  Are there really enough studio owners who choose to combine their points for a trade up (as someone else put it, a "once in a lifetime experience like Hawaii") to balance out the number of people who, as the timeshare salesperson likes to say, "take the platinum week and get 3 weeks out of it."
> In those systems, all the accommodations are of royal quality.  So, a king could basically trade for 3 jacks.
> I don't know the mini-systems well enough to conjecture on this.  But it does, on the face of it, seem that there would be a glut of kings if people actually use the systems the way their "sold" to do so.



There is no question if it occurs. What you get for your ownership is known, what you take out is known and the difference is your change back . Easy & open unike the secret backroom games of the current "trade power" we don't see & cannit get change back from or combinr weeks to get a desired use.

see why it's a good way to go?


----------



## JudyS

"Roger" said:


> ...
> Final note:  Disney has a points system.  Hyatt has a points system.  Bluegreen has a points system.  Hilton has a points system.  Are you suggesting that all of these systems are skimming the kings?





skimble said:


> It seems plausible... yes.  If I have 7200 Hilton points, and this represents one king-- a prime 2 bedroom. ...But it does, on the face of it, seem that there would be a glut of kings if people actually use the systems the way their "sold" to do so.



I don't know about Bluegreen and Hilton, but Disney has strict rules about what inventory can be rented out. I have never heard of allegations that Disney has violated these rules. So, the issue of "skimming" doesn't come up.  I can tell you that Disney's hightest point units ("Grand Villas") tend to book very quickly, though. 

As for how many people will "trade up" for high-point units (I'm not going to call them kings -- all this talk about jacks & kings is confusing me!), it would be interesting to know how many people combine multiple units to trade for one week in RCI Points.  It doesn't seem like RCI Points has trouble booking their high value units, so I suspect that some people do in fact trade multiple week's worth of Points for one "deluxe" week.


----------



## bccash63

I've been reading this thread for the past 2 weeks and it sounds alot like how RCI points work now.  You are given a predetermined amt of points for a deposit and 'purchase/trade' your points for a known amount at a resort you wish to visit.  This is also like Redweek.  For those of us who have consistently traded up--this will not work in our best interest.  For example--I traded my 1br SDO for a 3br in Scottsdale for Christmas 2011--both resorts are gold crown and the 3 br would definately require more points than my 1 br.  For those looking to combine lesser resort value for a Manhattan Club or DVC that they would be unable to get otherwise--this could be a good thing.  For those looking for more or less ane equitable trade it shouldn't make much difference except that more should be available to 'weeks' owners as they are unable to  access RCI points right now.  It will be interesting to see how it all works out.  For myself,  I predict it will result in no longer getting such great 'trade-ups'.   Dawn


----------



## buffyscrubs

look at the last minute boards-- if a week there is really worth 64K points, why do we see so many last minute bargains? The same could be said for SO many others... Bonaventure in Florida-- hugely overinflated.


----------



## dukebigtom

I suspect this is another way for RCI to increase income.  Splitting the value of your 50,000 credit week will probably cost you two exchange fees and using two 25,000 credit weeks to get one 50,000 weeks will probably cost two exchange fees.  

Time will tell how this all works out, but I've always been able to do pretty well with RCI other than being frustrated by seeing too much inventory for rent versus what I can see to exchange for at times.

BigTom


----------



## skimble

timeos2 said:


> There is no question if it occurs. What you get for your ownership is known, what you take out is known and the difference is your change back . Easy & open unike the secret backroom games of the current "trade power" we don't see & cannit get change back from or combinr weeks to get a desired use.
> 
> see why it's a good way to go?



I'm not adverse to change.  And, I *do* see value in this.  But again, I question RCI's motives.  They are not known for acting in the best interest of the consumers.  
And, I question the inforeseen consequences.  Every resort has an off-season.  While we'd like to stand back and say, "tough luck... you should have been smart like me," we have to realize... *we're co-owners with these people.*  WE have a vested interest in their satisfaction.  

If 10% of the owners fall deliquent on their fees, that 10% more you'll be paying.  All resorts currently deal with delinquencies-- and we pay extra for this, but the lower-demand resorts deal with them on a larger scale.  What happens when the delinquencies reach 20% or 30%?  Will it start effecting ownership on the high side too?

The effects will not be immediate.  But, like it's been said before, owners who see no value in their weeks, will stop paying for them-- walk away.  

Older resorts may choose to create a teired maintenance fee system.  Decreasing the off-peak week fees to 50% of what prime season owners pay might be an answer-- might help retain off-peak owners.  This might be overly speculative... but it's possible.  Resorts will have to find a way to deal with delinquencies once owners see no value in their weeks, especially in this economy.   Again, it's the unintended consequences that have me worried.  Once they jump into this system, even if it causes problems like this, there's no going back.


----------



## Dori

This is a big concern for me. We own two weeks at our home resort, one red and one blue. We added the blue week for next to nothing when the resort was in some diffuculty several years ago. They were giving them away, just to recoup the yearly MF's, which are the same as those of our red week.

 Over the years, we have been able to get some decent trades using this blue week. I have never expected to see fabulous weeks in SW Florida, or GC's in prime areas, but we have been able to do Orlando, Pennsylvania, LV and some other over-built areas. We have made good use of this week. If the new system offers nothing to me, or if I will need to combine weeks to make a trade, I will dump my blue week for certain. I am sure that many other blue owners will do the same. This will put so many resorts in jeopardy, as there are often more off-seasons than peak times, and it is the blue owners that help to carry the resort through those seasons.

JMHO

Dori


----------



## timeos2

*Open is better than hidden unless you like to fool yourself or plan free upgrades*



Dori said:


> This is a big concern for me. We own two weeks at our home resort, one red and one blue. We added the blue week for next to nothing when the resort was in some diffuculty several years ago. They were giving them away, just to recoup the yearly MF's, which are the same as those of our red week.
> 
> Over the years, we have been able to get some decent trades using this blue week. I have never expected to see fabulous weeks in SW Florida, or GC's in prime areas, but we have been able to do Orlando, Pennsylvania, LV and some other over-built areas. We have made good use of this week. If the new system offers nothing to me, or if I will need to combine weeks to make a trade, I will dump my blue week for certain. I am sure that many other blue owners will do the same. This will put so many resorts in jeopardy, as there are often more off-seasons than peak times, and it is the blue owners that help to carry the resort through those seasons.
> 
> JMHO
> 
> Dori



Your blue week will continue to trade for at least other blue weeks and maybe even white times at other resorts, on it's own. Although obviously not prime times - that's why they are blue - you may often find that picked carefully and at the right resort a blue time week can be a value at a location away from your home resort. That is all you evr had claim to, will continue to have claim to along with a much better system of obtaining an upgrade in use/space/area whatever if you so desire. Knowing what your week is worth doesn't change the value it always had it simply makes you aware of it.  Unless you like fooling yourself about the value this simply increases your options and knowledge regarding what you own.


----------



## bnoble

I'd expect that even some "red" weeks that are desirable might be available for the credits allocated to a typical blue week---some of the mid-level resorts in over-deposited areas, for example.  Maybe you need an extra credit or two, but maybe not.  We'll just have to see what happens.


----------



## Dori

I am certainly adopting a wait-and-see attitude about this whole new process. It will be a very interesting, and hopefully not too discouraging, learning curve.

Dori


----------



## Carolinian

The half open system of publishing values but not how they are derived is the worst of all worlds.  It creates both the incentive and the ability to cheat.  The only published system that can be known to be honest is one that is FULLY pubilshed.  RCI has done enough dishonest things in their rental program, they are the last people in the exchange business we can trust to put out an honest set of numbers UNLESS they FULLY publish their methodology and data.

That said the present system has also become a mess that is not trustworthy since RCI has injected its own conflicts of interest into the system by owning major developers and building a major rental business on the back of the exchange system.  A non published system is only trustworthy as long as the entity running it lacks conflicts of interest.  In the old RCI system under Crystal deHahn, there were no conflicts of interest and the system working fine.  Cendent royally screwed that up.

RCI has an opportunity to correct its problems by launching this as a fully published system.  We will see if they do, but I have my doubts.

It is no surprise to me that those with interests in the overbuilt areas seem to oppose a fully published system while beating their chests about the virtues of a half-published system.  They have every reason to want RCI to still be able to put their thumb on the scales to benefit developers or resort areas where developers have interests.  They know that only with a semi-published system will RCI be able to overpoint the overbuilt areas as they do now in RCI Points.  With a fully published system, RCI cannot get away with that.

What I find ominous is that in talking to HOA board members and managers at independent resorts on both the OBX and in two countries in Europe, none of them have heard word one about this new system from RCI, but I have found out that RCI made a presentation on it at ARDA to the big developers and big management companies.  Who, logically, does this pattern suggest is going to get screwed when this numbers racket is published???

Personally, I have two summer weeks in the UK I will be depositing soon.  DAE will get one and SFX the other.  None of my family can use our summer OBX week this year, so it is being rented.


----------



## Carolinian

The problem with your theory is that color designations are virtually meaningless.  Most were set years ago and never adjusted for subsequent changes in supply and demand.   When I compare the color charts with the availibility charts in the European version of the RCI directory, it shows just how absolutely laughable and out of date the color designations are.  Many seem to be given to developers to make them happy, rather than based on rational supply and demand factors.   There are many weeks out there designated as blue which have supply / demand curves that are light years better than week designated as red.

The dishonesty inhererent in maintaining these out of date and other manipulated color charts shows just how flawed and fraudulent RCI has behaved in anything they do that is half-published.  Only a fully published system will be honest and objective.  But those with interests in overbuilt areas do not want a system that is honest and objective because then their area has to be content with its real value, not an artificially inflated value.





timeos2 said:


> Your blue week will continue to trade for at least other blue weeks and maybe even white times at other resorts, on it's own. Although obviously not prime times - that's why they are blue - you may often find that picked carefully and at the right resort a blue time week can be a value at a location away from your home resort. That is all you evr had claim to, will continue to have claim to along with a much better system of obtaining an upgrade in use/space/area whatever if you so desire. Knowing what your week is worth doesn't change the value it always had it simply makes you aware of it.  Unless you like fooling yourself about the value this simply increases your options and knowledge regarding what you own.


----------



## timeos2

Carolinian said:


> The problem with your theory is that color designations are virtually meaningless.  Most were set years ago and never adjusted for subsequent changes in supply and demand.   When I compare the color charts with the availibility charts in the European version of the RCI directory, it shows just how absolutely laughable and out of date the color designations are.  Many seem to be given to developers to make them happy, rather than based on rational supply and demand factors.   There are many weeks out there designated as blue which have supply / demand curves that are light years better than week designated as red.
> 
> The dishonesty inhererent in maintaining these out of date and other manipulated color charts shows just how flawed and fraudulent RCI has behaved in anything they do that is half-published.  Only a fully published system will be honest and objective.  But those with interests in overbuilt areas do not want a system that is honest and objective because then their area has to be content with its real value, not an artificially inflated value.



By now most followers of these types of "what is it worth and how does it get valued" threads must realize that each participant sets their own rules. What it often boils down to is that if they follow the values of the poster to a tee than "they got it right". If not then "it's over (under) valued".  

The criteria can be one or more of many possibilities. Location, resort features, dates, weather, size, etc etc. There is never any absolute right or wrong - never any one value fits all - but a blend of valuation that ultimately sets the value to you as an individual as well as the overall value  used by the exchange system. Even the latter varies when you change focus from one exchange system to another. 

Reading the posts it is clear that what is important to one participant may not matter to another. A remote, out of country (assuming home base of the USA) unit by the sea or in a desirable village may be the holy grail for one user. But for a vast majority that trade would hold little or no value (few are going to pack up 4 kids & pay to fly to that wonderful location for a week) yet a 3 bedroom, highly amenity filled resort in Orlando, LV, Branson or many other "overbuilt" areas that they can drive to would not only be an equal to that once in a lifetime  foreign exchange but actually fit them much better and be far more desirable TO THEM than the nearly impossible  trade would ever be. Different family - different desires and needs. And usually the majority of exchangers actually need/want trades that aren't of the super tough, extremely rare variety but rather of the more mundane holiday/school break, large unit, kid pleasing features for family, easy/cheap to travel to  that are far more useful to those more typical travelers. 

That's why so many resorts are in highly family friendly areas, set up to meet those common needs. That may be far more pedestrian than the type of one time, highly location sensitive trip that would be extremely limited in obtainability, The value of both types may be surprisingly equal when viewed from the individual needs of the different type of traveler.  Just because one doesn't meet your type of desired travel doesn't mean the value isn't there - and may have even more value despite an overall far greater amount of deposits - to many others. 

The exchange companies know this and value based on all travelers demands, not simply on one factor such as how many resorts exists nearby or what "color" was assigned. Trying to create and say values are incorrect based on ones personal use patterns just doesn't work. Exchange systems have to use values that the vast majority of users will desire. That doesn't mean they  have sold out to developers but rather have plugged in use patterns to maximize the value of what gets deposited & what gets requested. And the beauty of a published system is that users then get to decide if it fits their likely needs or not. With secret values that isn't possible and often leaves owners stuck in the wrong system(s) and frustrated with timeshare . That helps no one.


----------



## skimble

Carolinian said:


> The half open system of publishing values but not how they are derived is the worst of all worlds.  It creates both the incentive and the ability to cheat.  The only published system that can be known to be honest is one that is FULLY pubilshed.  RCI has done enough dishonest things in their rental program, they are the last people in the exchange business we can trust to put out an honest set of numbers UNLESS they FULLY publish their methodology and data.
> 
> That said the present system has also become a mess that is not trustworthy since RCI has injected its own conflicts of interest into the system by owning major developers and building a major rental business on the back of the exchange system.  A non published system is only trustworthy as long as the entity running it lacks conflicts of interest.  In the old RCI system under Crystal deHahn, there were no conflicts of interest and the system working fine.  Cendent royally screwed that up.
> 
> RCI has an opportunity to correct its problems by launching this as a fully published system.  We will see if they do, but I have my doubts.
> 
> It is no surprise to me that those with interests in the overbuilt areas seem to oppose a fully published system while beating their chests about the virtues of a half-published system.  They have every reason to want RCI to still be able to put their thumb on the scales to benefit developers or resort areas where developers have interests.  They know that only with a semi-published system will RCI be able to overpoint the overbuilt areas as they do now in RCI Points.  With a fully published system, RCI cannot get away with that.



If RCI Points is any indicator of how value will be determined, then the San Clemente Inn is a great example of unfair weighting.  
Try to find a summer coastal week in CA.  First of all, there are very few available, and more and more owners are choosing to use or rent theirs.  However, if an owners at SCI chooses to deposit their summer week, it's valued at 27K points for a 1 bedroom unit that sleeps 6.  
We all see the developer over-valued properties.  There's no question about that.  But if supply/demand is part of the formula for determining value, the points value for a summer SCI unit should be Much higher.  It's because of this low value that I'm afraid to deposit my summer beach weeks with RCI.  And it's things like this and everything Carolinian mentions above that we have reason to not trust RCI in creating an upright system.


----------



## skimble

timeos2 said:


> The criteria can be one or more of many possibilities. Location, resort features, dates, weather, size, etc etc. There is never any absolute right or wrong - never any one value fits all - but a blend of valuation that ultimately sets the value to you as an individual as well as the overall value  used by the exchange system. Even the latter varies when you change focus from one exchange system to another.
> 
> Reading the posts it is clear that what is important to one participant may not matter to another. A remote, out of country (assuming home base of the USA) unit by the sea or in a desirable village may be the holy grail for one user. But for a vast majority that trade would hold little or no value (few are going to pack up 4 kids & pay to fly to that wonderful location for a week) yet a 3 bedroom, highly amenity filled resort in Orlando, LV, Branson or many other "overbuilt" areas that they can drive to would not only be an equal to that once in a lifetime  foreign exchange but actually fit them much better and be far more desirable TO THEM than the nearly impossible  trade would ever be. Different family - different desires and needs. And usually the majority of exchangers actually need/want trades that aren't of the super tough, extremely rare variety but rather of the more mundane holiday/school break, large unit, kid pleasing features for family, easy/cheap to travel to  that are far more useful to those more typical travelers.
> 
> That's why so many resorts are in highly family friendly areas, set up to meet those common needs. That may be far more pedestrian than the type of one time, highly location sensitive trip that would be extremely limited in obtainability, The value of both types may be surprisingly equal when viewed from the individual needs of the different type of traveler.  Just because one doesn't meet your type of desired travel doesn't mean the value isn't there - and may have even more value despite an overall far greater amount of deposits - to many others.
> 
> The exchange companies know this and value based on all travelers demands, not simply on one factor such as how many resorts exists nearby or what "color" was assigned. Trying to create and say values are incorrect based on ones personal use patterns just doesn't work. Exchange systems have to use values that the vast majority of users will desire. That doesn't mean they  have sold out to developers but rather have plugged in use patterns to maximize the value of what gets deposited & what gets requested. And the beauty of a published system is that users then get to decide if it fits their likely needs or not. With secret values that isn't possible and often leaves owners stuck in the wrong system(s) and frustrated with timeshare . That helps no one.



Demand is demand.  It doesn't matter what the criteria is.  If there's a coastal CA week available, and it's closer to the ocean... there's a cluster of people who find that desirable.  They will book it.  
Southern California is a diverse place.  A resort that's 40 miles away from the coast is in the desert-- not a fun place to be in July.  But then, there are people from Canada who want to experience 110 degrees and golf in the morning.  It appeals to them.  Yet, if the demand were there, we wouldn't see a glut of weeks in the trade system, and we wouldn't see so many of these weeks being on the last minute rental boards.  
Ultimately, if a week is desired because of its wonderful location over it's crummy amenities or older architecture, then it should be valued accordingly.  I LOVE Pacific Grove, CA.  It's beautiful!  The resorts in that area are older though, and they're not very close to the ocean.  But, it's a difficult trade.  Why?  It has to be because of the availability and the demand. 
There's only one formula they should use-- demand.  Demand is more difficult to figure out in a newer resort, however this is where the comps come in.  Look at comparable structures, rentals demand in the area.  Done correctly, valuation of a newer property should be like getting an appraisal on a home.  With older properties, the value is Known.  RCI knows how quickly these resorts get traded for in the system.  They know the times of year that are highest demand.  
Ultimately, even if RCI does a decent job with valuing these weeks, there's going to be errors.  Is RCI going to make adjustments when these errors are demonstrated?


----------



## Carolinian

Wrong.  There are only two factors that matter, SUPPLY and DEMAND.  Everything else you mention are merely drivers of Demand, not seperate factors in and of themselves.  To count any one of those drivers as a seperate factor is merely a mechanism to put a thumb on the scales and inject favoritism into the value system.  In the many threads that have been on t/s bbs sites about the factors that matter to most people as drivers, location has always trumped the bells and whistles aspects, so if the new numbers system does not reflect that reality, then there has clearly been some hanky panky in rigging numbers.  Also excessive numbers for overbuilt areas would be a clear signal of fraud in the numbers.





timeos2 said:


> By now most followers of these types of "what is it worth and how does it get valued" threads must realize that each participant sets their own rules. What it often boils down to is that if they follow the values of the poster to a tee than "they got it right". If not then "it's over (under) valued".
> 
> The criteria can be one or more of many possibilities. Location, resort features, dates, weather, size, etc etc. There is never any absolute right or wrong - never any one value fits all - but a blend of valuation that ultimately sets the value to you as an individual as well as the overall value  used by the exchange system. Even the latter varies when you change focus from one exchange system to another.
> 
> Reading the posts it is clear that what is important to one participant may not matter to another. A remote, out of country (assuming home base of the USA) unit by the sea or in a desirable village may be the holy grail for one user. But for a vast majority that trade would hold little or no value (few are going to pack up 4 kids & pay to fly to that wonderful location for a week) yet a 3 bedroom, highly amenity filled resort in Orlando, LV, Branson or many other "overbuilt" areas that they can drive to would not only be an equal to that once in a lifetime  foreign exchange but actually fit them much better and be far more desirable TO THEM than the nearly impossible  trade would ever be. Different family - different desires and needs. And usually the majority of exchangers actually need/want trades that aren't of the super tough, extremely rare variety but rather of the more mundane holiday/school break, large unit, kid pleasing features for family, easy/cheap to travel to  that are far more useful to those more typical travelers.
> 
> That's why so many resorts are in highly family friendly areas, set up to meet those common needs. That may be far more pedestrian than the type of one time, highly location sensitive trip that would be extremely limited in obtainability, The value of both types may be surprisingly equal when viewed from the individual needs of the different type of traveler.  Just because one doesn't meet your type of desired travel doesn't mean the value isn't there - and may have even more value despite an overall far greater amount of deposits - to many others.
> 
> The exchange companies know this and value based on all travelers demands, not simply on one factor such as how many resorts exists nearby or what "color" was assigned. Trying to create and say values are incorrect based on ones personal use patterns just doesn't work. Exchange systems have to use values that the vast majority of users will desire. That doesn't mean they  have sold out to developers but rather have plugged in use patterns to maximize the value of what gets deposited & what gets requested. And the beauty of a published system is that users then get to decide if it fits their likely needs or not. With secret values that isn't possible and often leaves owners stuck in the wrong system(s) and frustrated with timeshare . That helps no one.


----------



## lgreenspan

*Who is your source?*



timeos2 said:


> I have recently heard from two different RCI sources that, as part of the fallout from the ill-fated class action suit, the RCI Weeks system is going to undergo a major and unprecedented change.  The long secret trade value is coming out from the shadows and will be used front and center as the new means for facilitating trades.
> 
> 
> The announcement should occur in 4-8 weeks. That should be enough to get the conversation rolling for now.



Is this coming from  RCI management? I would never put stock in anything a RCI phone operator tells you.

Dave


----------



## timeos2

*No phone involved*



lgreenspan said:


> Is this coming from  RCI management? I would never put stock in anything a RCI phone operator tells you.
> 
> Dave



This was presented at two different resorts, two separate Board meetings by a management & an RCI representative respectively. It was informational for the Boards involved to inform them of upcoming changes at RCI and what owners / members will hear. 

It is official, not a rumor.  No exact roll out date was offered.


----------



## Carolinian

timeos2 said:


> This was presented at two different resorts, two separate Board meetings by a management & an RCI representative respectively. It was informational for the Boards involved to inform them of upcoming changes at RCI and what owners / members will hear.
> 
> It is official, not a rumor.  No exact roll out date was offered.



I had a soource tell me that RCI also presented it to the big developers and management companies who attend ARDA. Roll out dates I have heard range from June to November.  Every small independent resort I have talked to in either the OBX or Europe has not heard a word about it from RCI, however.  My discussion, in fact, was the first they had heard about it from anybody.

The fact that RCI is informing some and not others causes huge concern.  It raises the issue as to whether those being informed are those who will be favored by artificially inflated values and those ignored the ones who will be hosed.  If RCI is going to be honest about this system, they must have FULL transparency including the formula and the data behind it.  Their selectivity in who they inform and who they ignore is just the first sign that this system is likely to be rigged.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> All resorts in Crystal deHahn's day did NOT have anything close to equal locations, and location always trumps quality or award status as a driver of demand, so resorts even then were far from equal.





Carolinian said:


> Wrong.  There are only two factors that matter, SUPPLY and DEMAND.  Everything else you mention are merely drivers of Demand, not seperate factors in and of themselves.  To count any one of those drivers as a seperate factor is merely a mechanism to put a thumb on the scales and inject favoritism into the value system.  In the many threads that have been on t/s bbs sites about the factors that matter to most people as drivers, location has always trumped the bells and whistles aspects, so if the new numbers system does not reflect that reality, then there has clearly been some hanky panky in rigging numbers.  Also excessive numbers for overbuilt areas would be a clear signal of fraud in the numbers.


You are right that many factors drive demand, but I dont think you're seeing the whole picture.  Location is often the #1 criteria, but location can mean something more general (Mid-Atlantic Coast), a bit more specific (Coastal North Carolina), or very sepcific (on the beach, NC Barrier Islands).  But I don't think the most specific "location" is what drives most exchangers - many families want a location within driving distance of home, and near the beach.  If they plan to go back every year, they yes they want it on the beach.  But if they are visiting different locations every year, being on the beach might not be so important.  I suspect many families are like mine.  When our children were younger, we didn't want to be right on the beach, because we wanted to be able to get away from the crowds during nap times.  As they got older, we still didn't want to be on the beach, because they prefer to swim in the resort pool (preferably outdoor), rather than in the ocean, because the pool water is warmer, and there are no waves.  They like to play a variety of games in the pool.  The beach is for walking and searching for shells.  You yourself have pointed out that we are talking about exchangers, not renters.

In an earlier post you stated that the internet has not driven timeshare rentals, but I would beg to differ.  First, it has allowed individual owners access to a much larger market, and has done the same for renters.  Even if the vast majority of rentals are done through local agencies, where do you think the renters found those agencies?  Most non-local renters found them through the internet, either through online listings, or by looking for Whitepage listings local to where they want to vacation.

I think this new system should prove interesting.  You have an idea of what you expect values to be for various areas, but some of us disagree with your ratings.  I agree there could be some fine-tuning, but I don't think RCI has it really that far off.  I would expect these ratings to be based on the current "hidden" system, and I suspect we will see some surprises.  

RCI sees less demand for areas like Orlando in its off-season, but I honestly don't think those weeks drop to the level of some of the seasonal areas.  The reason for the supply is just that - a large supply.  The "capacity" for timeshare units is based on the highest-demand times, and Orlando does have limited supply during those times.  When you consider a place overbuilt because of empty rooms in the off-season, then Cape Cod and many other beach locations are also overbuilt.

You argue that those offseason Orlando weeks should carry low point values, but if they do, I suspect we will see a major shift in demand - right into those weeks.  More families with young children or without children will choose to visit during the "bargain" times, over the higher demand times.  More families may choose more visits as well, because of the low cost of those weeks.  But if demand increases, then shouldn't the point values also increase?  See where I'm going?  Shouldn't the value of the peak times decrease if demand decreases?

No matter how transparent or opaque the system is, it is in RCI's best interest to value the week appropriately, to balance the supply and demand.  High values increase supply and decrease demand, low values do the opposite.


----------



## lgreenspan

8 weeks have passed. Any news from RCI?


----------



## Carolinian

You are looking through the rose colored glasses of an Orlando owner.

Bootleg, the most credible RCI source ever on these boards, told us that the places RCI almost always had a big oversupply were Orlando, Branson, Massanutten, and Williamsburg.  He also told us that the resort with the biggest oversupply in the entire RCI system was Vacation Villages at Parkway, an Orlando resort.

Right now anything out there trades for Orlando much of the year.  If that does not continue after their numbers racket is released, then they have cooked the books and are defrauding members.  No resort or resort area should have a ''value'' atificially inflated above what supply and demand say it should be.




Mel said:


> You are right that many factors drive demand, but I dont think you're seeing the whole picture.  Location is often the #1 criteria, but location can mean something more general (Mid-Atlantic Coast), a bit more specific (Coastal North Carolina), or very sepcific (on the beach, NC Barrier Islands).  But I don't think the most specific "location" is what drives most exchangers - many families want a location within driving distance of home, and near the beach.  If they plan to go back every year, they yes they want it on the beach.  But if they are visiting different locations every year, being on the beach might not be so important.  I suspect many families are like mine.  When our children were younger, we didn't want to be right on the beach, because we wanted to be able to get away from the crowds during nap times.  As they got older, we still didn't want to be on the beach, because they prefer to swim in the resort pool (preferably outdoor), rather than in the ocean, because the pool water is warmer, and there are no waves.  They like to play a variety of games in the pool.  The beach is for walking and searching for shells.  You yourself have pointed out that we are talking about exchangers, not renters.
> 
> In an earlier post you stated that the internet has not driven timeshare rentals, but I would beg to differ.  First, it has allowed individual owners access to a much larger market, and has done the same for renters.  Even if the vast majority of rentals are done through local agencies, where do you think the renters found those agencies?  Most non-local renters found them through the internet, either through online listings, or by looking for Whitepage listings local to where they want to vacation.
> 
> I think this new system should prove interesting.  You have an idea of what you expect values to be for various areas, but some of us disagree with your ratings.  I agree there could be some fine-tuning, but I don't think RCI has it really that far off.  I would expect these ratings to be based on the current "hidden" system, and I suspect we will see some surprises.
> 
> RCI sees less demand for areas like Orlando in its off-season, but I honestly don't think those weeks drop to the level of some of the seasonal areas.  The reason for the supply is just that - a large supply.  The "capacity" for timeshare units is based on the highest-demand times, and Orlando does have limited supply during those times.  When you consider a place overbuilt because of empty rooms in the off-season, then Cape Cod and many other beach locations are also overbuilt.
> 
> You argue that those offseason Orlando weeks should carry low point values, but if they do, I suspect we will see a major shift in demand - right into those weeks.  More families with young children or without children will choose to visit during the "bargain" times, over the higher demand times.  More families may choose more visits as well, because of the low cost of those weeks.  But if demand increases, then shouldn't the point values also increase?  See where I'm going?  Shouldn't the value of the peak times decrease if demand decreases?
> 
> No matter how transparent or opaque the system is, it is in RCI's best interest to value the week appropriately, to balance the supply and demand.  High values increase supply and decrease demand, low values do the opposite.


----------



## skimble

How will this new system treat last minute exchanges?  In RCI Points, on the points side, weeks are never discounted.  If a resort week is artificially inflated to 50K points, and it's still there 1 week before checkin, it will still cost 50K.  
On the Weeks side, this same week would be 9K.  
How is that going to work with credits?


----------



## Carolinian

skimble said:


> How will this new system treat last minute exchanges?  In RCI Points, on the points side, weeks are never discounted.  If a resort week is artificially inflated to 50K points, and it's still there 1 week before checkin, it will still cost 50K.
> On the Weeks side, this same week would be 9K.
> How is that going to work with credits?



Some of those who have heard the presentations say that there is supposed to be some method by which the last minute inventoy will be discounted but nobody seems to have the specifics.

One big red flag on RCI's communication of this new program is that they seem to only be talking to certain types of resorts.  The sold-out independent resorts which do not use big time management companies seem to have been left completely out of the communications loop, and that applies to resorts I have talked to on both sides of the Atlantic.   That may also be a preliminary indication of just who is going to get screwed in their numbers racket.  Resorts which are not treated fairly on values should start to actively work to migrate their members who exchange over to other exchange companies.


----------



## NurseLinda

*RCI has changed over the years*



rickandcindy23 said:


> And by the way, RCI was different for many years.  And we should know, because we have owned and mostly traded that week for the past 27 years.
> 
> RCI has changed, and the more people that are aware of the changes, the better.  HOA boards need to let owners know how RCI treats exchangers, along with a list of alternatives.  All resorts should be dual-affiliated with II as well.  It's the only RIGHT thing to do.



We are new members so I am just now reading posts from the last few months regarding the new "transparency" of RCI, and the posting from rickandcindy back in March caught my attention.

We became RCI members only a few years after the "shoe box in the basement" company started--think our first membership year was 32-33 years ago.  Over the early years of membership we easily got exchange requests filled. We have seen the changes in weeks exchange availability that have come with big corporate management and the growth of the rental of exchange-deposited inventory.  The class-action settlement was indeed a slap on the wrist and a farce.  We will be letting our RCI membership expire and are now members of II which, at least, lets you "shop" without leaving "your wallet at the door" before entering [to borrow qoutes from other posters].  Because we own several Christmas season FL beach units, we get the annual call from RCI in mid-January asking us to deposit our weeks for the following holiday season.  My response now is "I will not deposit my prime weeks so that RCI can convert them to rental inventory rather than making them available to other exchangers. I am done with exchanging through RCI."

Another company to watch out for is Vacation Resorts International [VRI].  We deposited a one bedroom sleeps 4/privacy 2/one bathroom and were offered a one bedroom sleeps 6/privacy 2/one bathroom [Murphy bed and sleep sofa in living room] for a $100 "upgrade surcharge" in addition to the exchange fee because of the "higher occupancy" capability.  We considered that a rip-off corporate scam.

We still love timesharing, but now there are many other exchange companies to use--DAE was great.


----------



## Timmuscat

The last person I spoke to at RCI told me the new RCI weeks plan is supposed to be rolled out in November.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Welcome to TUG, NurseLinda!  Great first post, too.  

RCI has definitely become a great rental company and a poor exchange company.  What we have experienced is a loss of exchange power that cannot be ignored.  Leaving RCI is the only alternative for most of us.  And when they roll out an RCI Points program that creates different classes of owners, making resale or older resorts ineligible for some resorts that are more upscale, I will give our RCI Points away.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> You are looking through the rose colored glasses of an Orlando owner.
> 
> Bootleg, the most credible RCI source ever on these boards, told us that the places RCI almost always had a big oversupply were Orlando, Branson, Massanutten, and Williamsburg.  He also told us that the resort with the biggest oversupply in the entire RCI system was Vacation Villages at Parkway, an Orlando resort.
> 
> Right now anything out there trades for Orlando much of the year.  If that does not continue after their numbers racket is released, then they have cooked the books and are defrauding members.  No resort or resort area should have a ''value'' atificially inflated above what supply and demand say it should be.


If, when this is rolled out, there are a few units in Orlando that can almost always be had, will that suffice to meet your requirements?  Just because Orlando is almost always available doesn't mean almost any resort in Orlando is almost always available.

I think the true indicator will be what you suggest - supply and demand.  If RCI sets what you consider high values for Orlando resort, yet they are not available fot hose values (either because they were not deposited, or because many people found those "prices" reasonable) that would indicate that those numbers are fair.  The problem with Orlando is that you can't tell how many unit are available at any given time, just that some are available.  But if you take the top 20 resorts in Orlando, you will find that many weeks are often only available through an ongoing search.  Taking Orange Lake, if you tell me 300 2BR units are available during a given week, that is far different than 3 2BR units being available - but in moth cases, RCI will show availability during that week.  Also 300 weeks being available at a resort that size if far different from 300 units available at a resort that only has 400 units.


----------



## Carolinian

One test will be to compare what has in recent times been availible for a SA week trade into Orlando.  I have already gotten rid of my last ever SA deposit to RCI, but I know what it would pull.  SA is a good test because the availibility chart in the European version of the RCI directory shows that SA has a much superior supply/demand curve to Orlando, i.e SA has relatively less supply for higher demand factors proportionately than Orlando.  If the numbers don't match the present situation, then RCI is clearly cooking the books.  I will particularly watch the numbers at Vacation Village at Parkway, the resort that Bootleg identified as the one with the biggest oversupply in the entire RCI system.




Mel said:


> If, when this is rolled out, there are a few units in Orlando that can almost always be had, will that suffice to meet your requirements?  Just because Orlando is almost always available doesn't mean almost any resort in Orlando is almost always available.
> 
> I think the true indicator will be what you suggest - supply and demand.  If RCI sets what you consider high values for Orlando resort, yet they are not available fot hose values (either because they were not deposited, or because many people found those "prices" reasonable) that would indicate that those numbers are fair.  The problem with Orlando is that you can't tell how many unit are available at any given time, just that some are available.  But if you take the top 20 resorts in Orlando, you will find that many weeks are often only available through an ongoing search.  Taking Orange Lake, if you tell me 300 2BR units are available during a given week, that is far different than 3 2BR units being available - but in moth cases, RCI will show availability during that week.  Also 300 weeks being available at a resort that size if far different from 300 units available at a resort that only has 400 units.


----------



## Carolinian

Great post!  You have hit the nail on the head!



NurseLinda said:


> We are new members so I am just now reading posts from the last few months regarding the new "transparency" of RCI, and the posting from rickandcindy back in March caught my attention.
> 
> We became RCI members only a few years after the "shoe box in the basement" company started--think our first membership year was 32-33 years ago.  Over the early years of membership we easily got exchange requests filled. We have seen the changes in weeks exchange availability that have come with big corporate management and the growth of the rental of exchange-deposited inventory.  The class-action settlement was indeed a slap on the wrist and a farce.  We will be letting our RCI membership expire and are now members of II which, at least, lets you "shop" without leaving "your wallet at the door" before entering [to borrow qoutes from other posters].  Because we own several Christmas season FL beach units, we get the annual call from RCI in mid-January asking us to deposit our weeks for the following holiday season.  My response now is "I will not deposit my prime weeks so that RCI can convert them to rental inventory rather than making them available to other exchangers. I am done with exchanging through RCI."
> 
> Another company to watch out for is Vacation Resorts International [VRI].  We deposited a one bedroom sleeps 4/privacy 2/one bathroom and were offered a one bedroom sleeps 6/privacy 2/one bathroom [Murphy bed and sleep sofa in living room] for a $100 "upgrade surcharge" in addition to the exchange fee because of the "higher occupancy" capability.  We considered that a rip-off corporate scam.
> 
> We still love timesharing, but now there are many other exchange companies to use--DAE was great.


----------



## theo

*I respectfully disagree...*



NurseLinda said:


> Another company to watch out for is Vacation Resorts International [VRI].  We deposited a one bedroom sleeps 4/privacy 2/one bathroom and were offered a one bedroom sleeps 6/privacy 2/one bathroom [Murphy bed and sleep sofa in living room] for a $100 "upgrade surcharge" in addition to the exchange fee because of the "higher occupancy" capability.  We considered that a rip-off corporate scam.



While I do not in any way represent VRI, I think this is a harsh and unfounded statement.

VRI is fundamentally a *management* company --- *not* an exchange company, very capably managing over 125 resorts in the U.S. (more than 25 of them in Florida alone). As an owner of several different weeks at several different VRI-managed facilities for well over 20 years now, I have always been very impressed by the competency and fiscal responsibility of VRI.

The VRI*ety (internal exchange) program is certainly limited in scope, since it is only open to VRI facility owners in the first place, with only other VRI facilities in potential "inventory". Frankly, I fail to see how being offered a unit with more occupant capacity than what you deposited in the first place, for a mere $100 surcharge, is "a rip-off corporate scam". Would you expect $100 back if it was the other way around?

You are certainly entitled to an opinion; I am merely expressing my own strong disagreement with that portion of your opinion quoted above.


----------



## Judy

I apologize if this has been asked and answered before, but I can't find it   When are these changes to RCI's way of doing business supposed to start and how long will they last?  Particularly, when is RCI going to be obligated to make all early deposits available for exchange for a period of time (instead of putting the best ones directly into the rental pool)?


----------



## theo

*Rents Condos Instead... a.k.a. "RCI"*



Judy said:


> When are these changes to RCI's way of doing business supposed to start and how long will they last?  Particularly, when is RCI going to be obligated to make all early deposits available for exchange for a period of time (instead of putting the best ones directly into the rental pool)?



If you are addressing the settlement / sellout terms of _Murillo vs. RCI_, I believe that the "changes" are supposed to have started already --- but will only be in place for exactly 36 months (...and then will disappear forever, by terms of the settlement / sellout, as if the "changes" had never even occurred in the first place). :annoyed:


----------



## Judy

theo said:


> If you are addressing the settlement / sellout terms of _Murillo vs. RCI_, I believe that the "changes" are supposed to have started already --- but will only be in place for exactly 36 months (...and then will disappear forever, by terms of the settlement / sellout, as if the "changes" had never even occurred in the first place). :annoyed:


   Has anyone tested this out by depositing a good week and then seeing whether it went into RCI's rental pool?

Has anyone noticed more availability for exchange instead of most of the good stuff being in rentals?


----------



## "Roger"

I am not sure that it is effect yet.  Wasn't part of the agreement that if something were in the rental pool it would still be available to exchangers?  There was a post a couple of weeks ago that would have seemed to indicate that hadn't started to occur yet.


----------



## bnoble

IIRC, one of the third-party lawyers filed an appeal, which put the whole settlement into suspension.


----------



## Carolinian

One thing anyone who plans to use RCI going forward after this new system comes in should be doing is documenting regularly what their weeks will currently trade for.  Do regular searches for places you like to go or even think you might want to go and print them off.  Include also for a point of reference how your resorts trade against the overbuilt areas.  Print it all off and keep it.  If your trading power gets screwed in going to this mindlessly hair-splitting exact number system, that will give you a basis to complain to RCI.  Don't rely on your memory vs. their convenient memory.  Have the smoking gun.

And if you do get screwed on trading power, demand your deposits back so you can give them to another exchange company.  If you need to, try to work through your resort to cancel the deposit.


----------



## theo

*Risky "test" --- hard to imagine taking it...*



Judy said:


> Has anyone tested this out by depositing a good week and then seeing whether it went into RCI's rental pool?



Since a "good" week can be rented out by the owner for the certainty of cash in hand, why would such an owner instead choose the crap shoot of depositing a "good" week with RCI, with absolutely no assurance of ever getting anything of comparable quality back in return?   
"Deposit, then pray" is simply not an acceptable (or fair) strategy or way to do business, at least in my view. 

Also, since RCI now has so very many different direct rental "outlets", there is certainly no guarantee of ever being able to openly see (or track) the whereabouts of *any* deposit anyhow --- good *or* bad.


----------



## bnoble

RCI isn't trying to hide the fact that they rent deposits.  In fact, they are quite open about it; that was one of the major points of the lawsuit.  They are on record saying that they do it, and the settlement will more or less allow them to continue once it is finally in effect.  There's not much reason to test anything.

Some folks consider this reason to leave RCI on principle.  I don't particularly care.  I know it's de rigeur to state categorically that "no one gets anything good back", but that simply hasn't been my experience.  Can I "trade up" quite as far as I used to with some of my weeks?  No, because it is also clear that RCI tightened up like-for-like in Weeks in May '09---and more for some than others.  There are also other reasons why the pickings have gotten slimmer.  For example, as Theo points out, more owners are finding it possible to rent their weeks with markets like Redweek, ebay, and even here at good ol' TUG.

But, there are still plenty of interesting weeks in the exchange sea, at least for me.  As long as RCI provides me with decent value, I'll keep using them.  If that's no longer true, I'll stop.  For some folks, it has already come to that point.  For others, not quite yet.



> One thing anyone who plans to use RCI going forward after this new system comes in should be doing is documenting regularly what their weeks will currently trade for.


This is always good advice, at any time, for any exchange company.  If you don't measure something, you can't know when it is no longer performing for you.  For those exchange companies that allow ongoing searches, it's also worth placing a few "test searches" from time to time and letting them run.  In some cases, the ongoing search will turn up much more than you see when looking yourself.  In other cases, it won't.  That's very valuable information to have.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Carolinian said:


> And if you do get screwed on trading power, demand your deposits back so you can give them to another exchange company.  If you need to, try to work through your resort to cancel the deposit.



I did this with my three 2010 Foxrun weeks, which I had just deposited a few weeks before the dis-enhancement of 5/30/2009.   I had proof of my sightings before, because I posted what I could see on the sightings board here.  I copied/ pasted what I could see at DVC and several Hawaii resorts, then had Carol Ablett from RCI check my trade power after 5/30.  She agreed it was awful.    

RCI wouldn't let go of my weeks, since they were all taken immediately from the system for exchanges (go figure), so I wrote to VRI (big fan of VRI), and VRI talked to the local RCI rep, basically fighting for my rights as an owner (once again, love VRI), and the rep pulled some strings and got my weeks back.  I deposited them in II, so RCI lost those weeks and the accompanying exchange fees.  The exchangers still got weeks, because RCI gave them replacement weeks.  

Our trading power went down by more than 1 level on everything we had deposited.  I finally PFD'd our Colorado summer weeks and gave up on RCI weeks at that time.  I play around with trading power when I deposit my weeks to go eventually to PFD, and it's all still horrid.  

Great thing about being on the BOD for two CO timeshares, I can steer people away from RCI.  I don't say anything about "evil RCI," but I do tell them about all of the cheaper alternatives in newsletters and at annual meetings.  I am getting my revenge!


----------



## timeos2

*Oranges to Elephants - no comparison*



Carolinian said:


> One test will be to compare what has in recent times been availible for a SA week trade into Orlando.  I have already gotten rid of my last ever SA deposit to RCI, but I know what it would pull.  SA is a good test because the availibility chart in the European version of the RCI directory shows that SA has a much superior supply/demand curve to Orlando, i.e SA has relatively less supply for higher demand factors proportionately than Orlando.  If the numbers don't match the present situation, then RCI is clearly cooking the books.  I will particularly watch the numbers at Vacation Village at Parkway, the resort that Bootleg identified as the one with the biggest oversupply in the entire RCI system.



The usual problem here. It seems to be "Understood" that when II says yoy cannot compare directly demand between areas it is accepted. But the same applies to RCI. The demand may very well be greater than supply in SA BUT it isn't from RCI Members looking for US in general, FL specific travel. No matter how much or how little supply of SA weeks/resorts there may be it isn't an option for the vast majority of Domestic RCI users- thus meaningless for comparison. 

This type of red herring comparison does nothing to "prove" anything. What counts, as Mel points out, is can you get what you want - not just any one week - in Orlando when you want it? If the majority of the time you can't or it costs the full allotted points then they in fact have valued it properly. That doesn't make the valuation of SA wrong as they they are looking at a mostly different client base.


----------



## Carolinian

They are NOT AT ALL open about their rentals. Their agents have been known to deny it.  Their materials, including those they provide to developers selling their exchange services, hide it.  They ought to be required by state timeshare law to give disclosures in big letters for timeshare buyers to sign.  Now THAT would be open.  What they do now is most certainly NOT.




bnoble said:


> RCI isn't trying to hide the fact that they rent deposits.  In fact, they are quite open about it; that was one of the major points of the lawsuit.  They are on record saying that they do it, and the settlement will more or less allow them to continue once it is finally in effect.  There's not much reason to test anything.
> 
> Some folks consider this reason to leave RCI on principle.  I don't particularly care.  I know it's de rigeur to state categorically that "no one gets anything good back", but that simply hasn't been my experience.  Can I "trade up" quite as far as I used to with some of my weeks?  No, because it is also clear that RCI tightened up like-for-like in Weeks in May '09---and more for some than others.  There are also other reasons why the pickings have gotten slimmer.  For example, as Theo points out, more owners are finding it possible to rent their weeks with markets like Redweek, ebay, and even here at good ol' TUG.
> 
> But, there are still plenty of interesting weeks in the exchange sea, at least for me.  As long as RCI provides me with decent value, I'll keep using them.  If that's no longer true, I'll stop.  For some folks, it has already come to that point.  For others, not quite yet.
> 
> 
> This is always good advice, at any time, for any exchange company.  If you don't measure something, you can't know when it is no longer performing for you.  For those exchange companies that allow ongoing searches, it's also worth placing a few "test searches" from time to time and letting them run.  In some cases, the ongoing search will turn up much more than you see when looking yourself.  In other cases, it won't.  That's very valuable information to have.


----------



## Carolinian

Supply and demand are global.  It cannot be legitimately compartmentalized as you try.  Travel demand is global and RCI's business is global.  The key to the market is total demand and total supply.  Whether it comes from Europeans, Floridians, Dade County residents, South Africans, or little green men from Mars, it really doesn't matter.  It also doesn't matter if they pay their exchange fees in rand, rubles, dollars, lei, or euros.  I have run into South Africans on timeshare trades on two of my last three exchanges.  At Knocktopher Abbey in Ireland, they were DAE exchangers and the ones in the UK I think were through RCI.  I have run into them on the OBX on RCI exchanges, too.

No matter how you slice and dice your convoluted theories, you cannot change one fact, that Orlando has a chronic oversupply of timeshare in the exchange system.




timeos2 said:


> The usual problem here. It seems to be "Understood" that when II says yoy cannot compare directly demand between areas it is accepted. But the same applies to RCI. The demand may very well be greater than supply in SA BUT it isn't from RCI Members looking for US in general, FL specific travel. No matter how much or how little supply of SA weeks/resorts there may be it isn't an option for the vast majority of Domestic RCI users- thus meaningless for comparison.
> 
> This type of red herring comparison does nothing to "prove" anything. What counts, as Mel points out, is can you get what you want - not just any one week - in Orlando when you want it? If the majority of the time you can't or it costs the full allotted points then they in fact have valued it properly. That doesn't make the valuation of SA wrong as they they are looking at a mostly different client base.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> No matter how you slice and dice your convoluted theories, you cannot change one fact, that Orlando has a chronic oversupply of timeshare in the exchange system.


RCI won't be valuing all Orlando timeshares the same, and they shouldn't.  RCI has an oversupply of weeks at some resorts, but other resorts are difficult to excange into.  If RCI were to publish the actual number of units available at a given resort, it would become very clear, very quickly, which resorts were valued fairly.  The whole point is to have a zero-sum system.  They want to set the point value such that the number of deposits closely matches the number of requests.  If the value of a given week is too high, there will be an abundance of deposits, and fewer people willing to "pay" that price to exchange in.  If the value is too low, there will not be enough deposits to satisfy demand.  When the value is just right, RCI will maximize the number of exchanges, and thus they maximize the fees paid.

With regard to rentals, I suppose it would be in their interest to undervalue the weeks they want to pull from the exchange pool for rentals, but in doing so, they reduce the number of owners willing to deposit.  For a long time, many here have complained that RCI has taken prime weeks out to rent, in exchange for lesser weeks intended for partner reservations.  By going to a point system they will their choices more transparent - if an owner of a week worth 40,000 points trades for a cruise, RCI is entitled to take out any week worth 40,000 points.


----------



## Carolinian

I concur that even in overbuilt areas, there are resorts that still pull very much better than most - DVC in Orlando or Anfi in the Canaries, for example, and those should indeed have higher trading power.  It is the law of supply and demand.

A zero sum system, however, is only possible if RCI stops putting its own hand in the exchange system's pocket for weeks to rent.  What they are doing is nothing but downright theft.  As long as that goes on, it will distort the system.




Mel said:


> RCI won't be valuing all Orlando timeshares the same, and they shouldn't.  RCI has an oversupply of weeks at some resorts, but other resorts are difficult to excange into.  If RCI were to publish the actual number of units available at a given resort, it would become very clear, very quickly, which resorts were valued fairly.  The whole point is to have a zero-sum system.  They want to set the point value such that the number of deposits closely matches the number of requests.  If the value of a given week is too high, there will be an abundance of deposits, and fewer people willing to "pay" that price to exchange in.  If the value is too low, there will not be enough deposits to satisfy demand.  When the value is just right, RCI will maximize the number of exchanges, and thus they maximize the fees paid.
> 
> With regard to rentals, I suppose it would be in their interest to undervalue the weeks they want to pull from the exchange pool for rentals, but in doing so, they reduce the number of owners willing to deposit.  For a long time, many here have complained that RCI has taken prime weeks out to rent, in exchange for lesser weeks intended for partner reservations.  By going to a point system they will their choices more transparent - if an owner of a week worth 40,000 points trades for a cruise, RCI is entitled to take out any week worth 40,000 points.


----------



## Mel

The biggest concern is one of finding an appropriate balance.  We know RCI rents some weeks out - it used to be only to RCI members, but we can probably all agree that the sheer number of resorts & weeks have gotten to a point where that isn't realistic.  The question is when RCI should pull weeks out of the system to rent, and how they choose which weeks to pull.

But there are other factors behind the scenes as well - SFX members have recently said that they have had SFX exchanges that were really RCI exchanges as far as the paperwork was concerned.  In other words, SFX gave RCI something, and in turn RCI gave them the inventory they needed, because SFX actively seeks to fulful their requests.   The assumption is that the SFX deposit would have otherwise qualified for the exchange through RCI.  If RCI gave up inventory from a new resort (which was a developer deposit), and got back a top week as a sold-out resort, neither of those weeks were part of the exchange system, and we have no real way of knowing the source of the weeks they rent.  

Hopefully, the new system will help us all to understand how RCI values our weeks.  Yes, they could get it wrong, but they also could get it right.  If VV at Parkway is valued the same as the Disney Resorts, we know they got it wrong.  Hopefully the new system will be dynamic enough that such errors can be corrected easily and quickly.  

It still ultimately boils down to the question of availability.  Will I qualify to trade to the resorts I want, when I want, and will RCI have availability to meet my exchange requests.  Perhaps if they get it wrong, owners of undervalued weeks will look elsewhere to exchange, leaving RCI with a glut of weeks that are overvalued - and owners of other overvalued resorts only able to exchange into similarly overvalued resorts.


----------



## AFARR

Mel said:


> The biggest concern is one of finding an appropriate balance.  We know RCI rents some weeks out - it used to be only to RCI members, but we can probably all agree that the sheer number of resorts & weeks have gotten to a point where that isn't realistic.  The question is when RCI should pull weeks out of the system to rent, and how they choose which weeks to pull.



Would it work to have RCI allow Rentals AND Exchanges on the weeks...maybe limit Rentals until after 2 weeks in the exchange pool have passed...and no "Rentals only" listings?


----------



## Carolinian

No, I do not think most timesharers would agree with you that RCI should rent spacebank inventory to the general public, and the number of resorts is simply not an excuse for their behavior.  I suggest you re-read the stickied thread on the RCI class action, if you seriously think timesharers agree with these RCI rentals.  But, then again, you have always tended to support the RCI position.

And, again, no, the issue is not the subjective question of us getting the resorts we want.  Heck, I want Allen House, but does that mean I should subjectively set that as a standard?  The real test is objective.  Do the values reasonably approximate what we know that the current system now shows about supply and demand.  That is why I suggested printing out searches on areas that matter to us, now, so that when the system changes we will have the smoking gun that objectively shows what the current system did.




Mel said:


> The biggest concern is one of finding an appropriate balance.  We know RCI rents some weeks out - it used to be only to RCI members, but we can probably all agree that the sheer number of resorts & weeks have gotten to a point where that isn't realistic.  The question is when RCI should pull weeks out of the system to rent, and how they choose which weeks to pull.
> 
> But there are other factors behind the scenes as well - SFX members have recently said that they have had SFX exchanges that were really RCI exchanges as far as the paperwork was concerned.  In other words, SFX gave RCI something, and in turn RCI gave them the inventory they needed, because SFX actively seeks to fulful their requests.   The assumption is that the SFX deposit would have otherwise qualified for the exchange through RCI.  If RCI gave up inventory from a new resort (which was a developer deposit), and got back a top week as a sold-out resort, neither of those weeks were part of the exchange system, and we have no real way of knowing the source of the weeks they rent.
> 
> Hopefully, the new system will help us all to understand how RCI values our weeks.  Yes, they could get it wrong, but they also could get it right.  If VV at Parkway is valued the same as the Disney Resorts, we know they got it wrong.  Hopefully the new system will be dynamic enough that such errors can be corrected easily and quickly.
> 
> It still ultimately boils down to the question of availability.  Will I qualify to trade to the resorts I want, when I want, and will RCI have availability to meet my exchange requests.  Perhaps if they get it wrong, owners of undervalued weeks will look elsewhere to exchange, leaving RCI with a glut of weeks that are overvalued - and owners of other overvalued resorts only able to exchange into similarly overvalued resorts.


----------



## "Roger"

As I read through the recent posts, I can't help but think of the Bob Dylan singing "Where have all the Orlandos gone ... long time passing ..."

The argument is that RCI has overpointed the Orlando resorts (_and has been doing so for about ten years now_).  On the other hand, not even RCI can defy the laws of economics.  As Mel pointed out, if RCI has made Orlando resorts over costly (in terms of either points or cash), RCI would not be able to get rid of them.  People would spend their resources elsewhere.  (That is how supply and demand works.)  

Admittedly, RCI might be able to sit on unused inventory for a year or two, but for ten years?  And why would they?  Aren't they a greedy company trying to make as much money as they possibly could?  Certainly they would not sacrifice profits for the sake of developers making more profits?  (I can't imagine a board meeting where someone from RCI tried to explain that strategy.)

Carolinian has a point in that Orlando is somewhat overbuilt - _at least as far as what is needed within the timesharing community._  What he ignores, however, is that the timesharing community is no longer this isolated world.  What can RCI be doing with the excess timeshare units.  The R word - renting them.  (I will speak to that at the end of this post.)

Here are some numbers taken from three sources:  the Wyndham Vacation Rental site (available to non-timesharers), the RCI Points charts, and the RCI points for products conversion charts (where Points owners can turn their points in for cash discounts).

Start with a search for an August rental in the Orlando area:

Silver Lake:  $583 or a one bedroom unit that garners 54,000 points.

Summer Bay:  No longer available for a full week.

Wyndham Bonnet Creek:  $999 for a unit that garners 49,000 points.  (Compared to Silver Lake, this resort seems to be *underpointed*. Is Wyndham being too careful about not favoring its own resorts?)

Wyndham Cypress Ponds: $715 for a unit that garners 42,000 points.  (Only available for the first week of August - otherwise sold out.  Again, Wyndham seems to be underpointing its own resorts.)

Now, to get these units, RCI offers Point owners the opportunity to use their points for cash.  The going rate (more or less) is one dollar per one hundred points.  So, to use Silver Lake as an example, RCI would pay the owner $540 to get a one bedroom unit, then turn around and rent it for $580 (plus they would also gain from a transaction fee).  This is somewhat akin to taking a Weeks unit, exchanging it, and making a profit on the exchange fee.

Is this bad business (to make money on transaction fees)?  Is RCI getting stuck with an inventory of Orlando resorts that they can't get rid of.  (Availability at the aforementioned resorsts does not seem that great.  If RCI was getting stuck with tons of inventory for which they paid fees for in points for products exchanges, this would be bad business. They do not seem worried, even after ten years of experience.)  Is it wrong for RCI to offer Points owners who don't want to bother trying to rent their own units, the chance to do it for them?  (This, in essence, is what points for products does.  Please note, I don't think that RCI tries to rent the exact units that are turned in for points for products.  That would be terribly inefficient.  Better to concentrate their efforts in the areas where people are looking for rentals - Orlando for example.  Collect these units and then use them to finance all the points for products exchanges.)  Would it be better for RCI to give less points to Orlando owners so that they can make bigger profits on the surplus?

Regardless of how you answer these questions, one thing I am sure of.  RCI is not deliberately taking losses so that developers can make profits.  American business doesn't work that way.


----------



## Carolinian

''Roger'', you have been defending RCI for years.  Orlando is a huge market with many timeshares.  Given all there is to work with, I am not surprised that you can cherry pick data to try to prove your point.  I noticed that some of the more widely availible resorts were not on your list.  And the simple fact, known to all of timesharing, but something for which many Orlando owners are in denial on, is that in totality, Orlando is one of the most overbuilt places on the planet in timeshare.

''somewhat overbuilt''???? Are you in denial or what.  Next I guess you will tell us that the ocean is ''somewhat wet''.





"Roger" said:


> As I read through the recent posts, I can't help but think of the Bob Dylan singing "Where have all the Orlandos gone ... long time passing ..."
> 
> The argument is that RCI has overpointed the Orlando resorts (_and has been doing so for about ten years now_).  On the other hand, not even RCI can defy the laws of economics.  As Mel pointed out, if RCI has made Orlando resorts over costly (in terms of either points or cash), RCI would not be able to get rid of them.  People would spend their resources elsewhere.  (That is how supply and demand works.)
> 
> Admittedly, RCI might be able to sit on unused inventory for a year or two, but for ten years?  And why would they?  Aren't they a greedy company trying to make as much money as they possibly could?  Certainly they would not sacrifice profits for the sake of developers making more profits?  (I can't imagine a board meeting where someone from RCI tried to explain that strategy.)
> 
> Carolinian has a point in that Orlando is somewhat overbuilt - _at least as far as what is needed within the timesharing community._  What he ignores, however, is that the timesharing community is no longer this isolated world.  What can RCI be doing with the excess timeshare units.  The R word - renting them.  (I will speak to that at the end of this post.)
> 
> Here are some numbers taken from three sources:  the Wyndham Vacation Rental site (available to non-timesharers), the RCI Points charts, and the RCI points for products conversion charts (where Points owners can turn their points in for cash discounts).
> 
> Start with a search for an August rental in the Orlando area:
> 
> Silver Lake:  $583 or a one bedroom unit that garners 54,000 points.
> 
> Summer Bay:  No longer available for a full week.
> 
> Wyndham Bonnet Creek:  $999 for a unit that garners 49,000 points.  (Compared to Silver Lake, this resort seems to be *underpointed*. Is Wyndham being too careful about not favoring its own resorts?)
> 
> Wyndham Cypress Ponds: $715 for a unit that garners 42,000 points.  (Only available for the first week of August - otherwise sold out.  Again, Wyndham seems to be underpointing its own resorts.)
> 
> Now, to get these units, RCI offers Point owners the opportunity to use their points for cash.  The going rate (more or less) is one dollar per one hundred points.  So, to use Silver Lake as an example, RCI would pay the owner $540 to get a one bedroom unit, then turn around and rent it for $580 (plus they would also gain from a transaction fee).  This is somewhat akin to taking a Weeks unit, exchanging it, and making a profit on the exchange fee.
> 
> Is this bad business (to make money on transaction fees)?  Is RCI getting stuck with an inventory of Orlando resorts that they can't get rid of.  (Availability at the aforementioned resorsts does not seem that great.  If RCI was getting stuck with tons of inventory for which they paid fees for in points for products exchanges, this would be bad business. They do not seem worried, even after ten years of experience.)  Is it wrong for RCI to offer Points owners who don't want to bother trying to rent their own units, the chance to do it for them?  (This, in essence, is what points for products does.  Please note, I don't think that RCI tries to rent the exact units that are turned in for points for products.  That would be terribly inefficient.  Better to concentrate their efforts in the areas where people are looking for rentals - Orlando for example.  Collect these units and then use them to finance all the points for products exchanges.)  Would it be better for RCI to give less points to Orlando owners so that they can make bigger profits on the surplus?
> 
> Regardless of how you answer these questions, one thing I am sure of.  RCI is not deliberately taking losses so that developers can make profits.  American business doesn't work that way.


----------



## "Roger"

I was reluctant to enter this thread of recent knowing that Steve's response would not be a comment about my argument but a comment about me. 

How I cherry picked.  I went to the first screen that came up under Wyndham Vacational Rentals and copied all the data off the first screen for all the resorts that were in Points with the exception of the Disney resorts.  I skipped the Disney resorts for two reasons.  There was already acknowledgment that these resorts had a higher demand.  They were only available for shorter periods of time, not full weeks.  For taking the resorts as they were listed, I get smeared.

Readers might notice that the wording of the final two paragraphs of my post left an openning for rebuttal.  (Maybe, RCI is getting stuck with resorts that they can't get rid of.  Am I wrong to wonder what the evidence for this is?  Why RCI would purposely lose money?  Does that make me an unreliable poster?  If so, I guess TUG is not for me.)

I am willing to listen to alternative explanations of what happens to all the overpointed Orlando resorts.  What I seriously doubt (last paragraph) is that RCI is deliberately taking a loss on these units for the sake of developers.  Corporations don't make other companies their favorite charity.


----------



## rickandcindy23

How does RCI purposely lose money, if they don't rent weeks?  Let the weeks sit.  They make money for every exchange (too much money, too).


----------



## "Roger"

rickandcindy23 said:


> How does RCI purposely lose money, if they don't rent weeks?  Let the weeks sit.  They make money for every exchange (too much money, too).


Lets take the simplest case.  Someone cashes their points unit in Orlando in for points for products.  Let us say that the owner gets $540.  If RCI fails to rent the unit, they lose money.

Then they can lose money through failed opportunities.  Someone trades in their Orlando unit, picks off an exchange (paying fees), but if their Orlando unit is neither traded (no exchange fess), nor rented (no money there), they lose money that they might have gained.  If the units are overpriced in the number of points required to obtain them, that is just what will happen.  Why would they do that?  (To give up the money that they might have made by obeying supply and demand so that developer can make money, makes no sense.  RCI is not a charitable organization.)

For exchanges, you need to add what economists call a multiplier effect.  Some one turns in a timeshare to get another timeshare.  That timeshare that has been turned in attracts someone else to turn in their timeshare for an exchange.

Orlando is not at the top of the food chain, but a knowledgeable person told me that a top resort can generate nineteen to twenty exchanges before everything has worked its way through the system.  (That would be nineteen to twenty exchange fees.)  This is why it is in RCI's interest to make sure that the top exchangers get something that satisfies them (and not let their unit immediately go for something of much lesser value).  At the middle range, they want to keep the exchange system going.  Inventory that just sits is not only a lost exchange fee, but amplified by the lost opportunities of the multiplier effect.

Look.  I am the one who is claiming that RCI is a greedy corporation trying to make every cent they can.  The idea of them giving deliberately over rewarding resorts so that developers can make money while they fail to get exchange fees (or, in this new world, rent out units) makes no economic sense.  For those who think that it does, I am willing to listen, but tell me how and tell me where the Orlando inventory has gone.


----------



## Mel

Steve, you questioned Roger about the rentals in Orlando.  I checked what RCI has available in August in Orlando, both as rentals and as exchanges.  Almost everything available as a rental was also available as an exchange.  The few exceptions were 3- and 4-day Disney stays, and a few resorts that seem to deposit units under multiple resort codes, one of which is listed as "rental."  For example, 3996 is Cypress Pointe Grand Villas, while 8080 is Cypress Pointe Grand Villas Rental.

There is very little availability either as rental or exchange for the first half of August.  So where are all the Orlando units?  If we use the slowest weeks to determine which areas are overbuilt, I think you will find that Orlando is not nearly as overbuild as some beach locations.  Yes, there is an oversupply of units during some parts of the year, but that is true of many resort areas.  Those resorts that never have an oversupply don't have anywhere near the number of units requested during their peak times.  The real problem isn't the individual overbuilt areas, but the whole system which is overbuilt.  A significant percentage of timeshare owners should never have bought - they can no more afford a timeshare than they can afford the overpriced houses they bought during the housing boom.  The difference is that everybody needs a home, not so a vacation home.

I agree that many, maybe even most, RCI members are upset rentals, but I suspect most would also agree that units shouldn't just sit empty.  Without rentals many will sit empty because so many owners don't want what RCI has available.  Many expect better trades than they can get, because they don't know the value of their own weeks, and some of them end up not exchanging at all, and lost their deposits.  As already mentioned, an empty week not only means no fees or rent coming in, but it breaks the chain of exchanges.  As Roger already mentioned, I don't see RCI letting weeks simply sit empty.

It's very much like the current job market and the illegal aliens.  We argue that "they" take jobs that should go to citizens, yet not citizens are willing to take those jobs at those wages... RCI rents out weeks, yet nobody wants to exchange something valuable for what RCI rents (sorry if that's too political).


----------



## Carolinian

You may have a point that the system as a totality is overbuilt but that does not mean that the ''whole system'' is overbuilt.  There are many areas, in fact, that are underbuilt.  Take London, Paris, New York, San Francisco, French Riviera, Tuscany, etc.  That also does not justify rentals to the general public of prime weeks.

Yes Orlando, like almost any timeshare area, does have a peak season when occupancy is very high.  But the availibility charts in the European version of teh RCI directory reveal that for much of the year that is not true.

As to units sitting empty, most members would rather that the units were there for bona fide members to exchange into, not taken out and rented to the general public.  The ''exclusivity'' was part of the glue that made the ownership / exchange model of timeshare work, and it was part of the genius of Crystal deHahn, founder of RCI.  It is one of the main things that Cendant royally screwed up when they took over the company.  From an HOA standpoint, I can tell you from my own HOA board experience, that the HOA is much better off with a unit standing empty as opposed to rented by RCI to an outsider.




Mel said:


> Steve, you questioned Roger about the rentals in Orlando.  I checked what RCI has available in August in Orlando, both as rentals and as exchanges.  Almost everything available as a rental was also available as an exchange.  The few exceptions were 3- and 4-day Disney stays, and a few resorts that seem to deposit units under multiple resort codes, one of which is listed as "rental."  For example, 3996 is Cypress Pointe Grand Villas, while 8080 is Cypress Pointe Grand Villas Rental.
> 
> There is very little availability either as rental or exchange for the first half of August.  So where are all the Orlando units?  If we use the slowest weeks to determine which areas are overbuilt, I think you will find that Orlando is not nearly as overbuild as some beach locations.  Yes, there is an oversupply of units during some parts of the year, but that is true of many resort areas.  Those resorts that never have an oversupply don't have anywhere near the number of units requested during their peak times.  The real problem isn't the individual overbuilt areas, but the whole system which is overbuilt.  A significant percentage of timeshare owners should never have bought - they can no more afford a timeshare than they can afford the overpriced houses they bought during the housing boom.  The difference is that everybody needs a home, not so a vacation home.
> 
> I agree that many, maybe even most, RCI members are upset rentals, but I suspect most would also agree that units shouldn't just sit empty.  Without rentals many will sit empty because so many owners don't want what RCI has available.  Many expect better trades than they can get, because they don't know the value of their own weeks, and some of them end up not exchanging at all, and lost their deposits.  As already mentioned, an empty week not only means no fees or rent coming in, but it breaks the chain of exchanges.  As Roger already mentioned, I don't see RCI letting weeks simply sit empty.
> 
> It's very much like the current job market and the illegal aliens.  We argue that "they" take jobs that should go to citizens, yet not citizens are willing to take those jobs at those wages... RCI rents out weeks, yet nobody wants to exchange something valuable for what RCI rents (sorry if that's too political).


----------



## MuranoJo

Carolinian said:


> As to units sitting empty, most members would rather that the units were there for bona fide members to exchange into, not taken out and rented to the general public.   From an HOA standpoint, I can tell you from my own HOA board experience, that the HOA is much better off with a unit standing empty as opposed to rented by RCI to an outsider.



I agree with this as well as an earlier comment from Cindy.  RCI has supposedly already made money from our annual membership fees, so if the unit isn't exchanged, should still be no skin off RCI's back.  Now, I can see where the resorts (if still in sell mode) may well like to have some exchangers in.  But as an owner who has paid a maintenance fee to have the 'privilege' to deposit, I feel I've also more than paid my dues to the resort.  I say leave them in and at least provide more last-minute, low-cost exchanges.  Alas, I feel my sentiments must be blowing in the wind...what is, is.


----------



## Carolinian

RCI however does however skew numbers as a result of developer politicking.  I know for a fact that it happened with BIS on the OBX, and BIS was part of a group of GC resorts that was pressuring RCI together for higer numbers.  I don't know how many resorts were in the group, but I strongly suspect all of them ultimately got their way with RCI about the same time that BIS did.

The test will be whether the numbers make any sense, say comparing southern England to Orlando.  The key to whether they make sense will be whether they are a significant change from the status quo as we know it.  If the status quo changes significantly, then RCI has cooked the books on the numbers.




"Roger" said:


> Lets take the simplest case.  Someone cashes their points unit in Orlando in for points for products.  Let us say that the owner gets $540.  If RCI fails to rent the unit, they lose money.
> 
> Then they can lose money through failed opportunities.  Someone trades in their Orlando unit, picks off an exchange (paying fees), but if their Orlando unit is neither traded (no exchange fess), nor rented (no money there), they lose money that they might have gained.  If the units are overpriced in the number of points required to obtain them, that is just what will happen.  Why would they do that?  (To give up the money that they might have made by obeying supply and demand so that developer can make money, makes no sense.  RCI is not a charitable organization.)
> 
> For exchanges, you need to add what economists call a multiplier effect.  Some one turns in a timeshare to get another timeshare.  That timeshare that has been turned in attracts someone else to turn in their timeshare for an exchange.
> 
> Orlando is not at the top of the food chain, but a knowledgeable person told me that a top resort can generate nineteen to twenty exchanges before everything has worked its way through the system.  (That would be nineteen to twenty exchange fees.)  This is why it is in RCI's interest to make sure that the top exchangers get something that satisfies them (and not let their unit immediately go for something of much lesser value).  At the middle range, they want to keep the exchange system going.  Inventory that just sits is not only a lost exchange fee, but amplified by the lost opportunities of the multiplier effect.
> 
> Look.  I am the one who is claiming that RCI is a greedy corporation trying to make every cent they can.  The idea of them giving deliberately over rewarding resorts so that developers can make money while they fail to get exchange fees (or, in this new world, rent out units) makes no economic sense.  For those who think that it does, I am willing to listen, but tell me how and tell me where the Orlando inventory has gone.


----------



## Dave599

timeos2 said:


> I have recently heard from two different RCI sources that, as part of the fallout from the ill-fated class action suit, the RCI Weeks system is going to undergo a major and unprecedented change.  The long secret trade value is coming out from the shadows and will be used front and center as the new means for facilitating trades.
> 
> What that means is no more secret values. Instead each and every week will get a known value when you deposit - and what you want to get will also have a known value. This is a major breakthrough. It will finally give members a way to know what they have and what it will cost to get what they want. It is NOT another points systems (trades will remain as 7 days). It will have other features.
> 
> - Consolidating.  The resort you deposit is worth 40 on the trade scale. The one you want (one of the best, highest demand in the system as we all seem to desire) demands 55. Yo can take  a combined value of another week to reach the 55.
> 
> - Change back. You are the lucky owner who deposits a high value time worth 50 on the scale. You can travel in off season or can use a smaller unit at only 20. You get the "change back" (30 credits) for future trades.
> 
> Those are just a couple key basics. What a positive and long overdue change.  With the values revealed and the ability to use multiple weeks and/or get change back the whole game changes. For the better.
> 
> Of course there will be losers as well. Those who knew how to game the system for free upgrades will now pay the going rate. Those who thought they had gold in some low value or over inventoried area will get less credits. Those who felt quality wasn't in the equation will learn it has a place. Overall I see this as a big step in the right direction for the broken weeks based exchange system that every exchange, not just RCI, should be looking at adopting.
> 
> The announcement should occur in 4-8 weeks. That should be enough to get the conversation rolling for now.



I think what you have said is great but I would not expect to see it happen
 that soon, maybe 6 or 7 months also keep in mind that every time you join
two deposits together to get a higher trade value its going to cost, don't 
expect RCI to let you do that for free.........So if you have a very low value 
week say like something in Orlando with a value of 10 and you want to go to 
say Hawaii with a value of 40 it will take 4 of your weeks to get that choice 
resort on the beach. So your 200.00 exchange plus 100 to joint the 2nd 
week and 100 to join the 3rd and 100 to join the 4th your 200 dollar 
exchange is now 500.00 and you use 4 of your weeks. Great for those with 
high trade value. 

Dave


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> The test will be whether the numbers make any sense, say comparing southern England to Orlando.  The key to whether they make sense will be whether they are a significant change from the status quo as we know it.  If the status quo changes significantly, then RCI has cooked the books on the numbers.


But if the "status quo" as you call it changes significantly in the direction you wish it to change, will you still claim RCI is cooking the books?  

People have enough choices in exchange companies, and it's not like the information about those exchange companies isn't freely available.  Once the numbers are available, people can make an informed decision.  They will be told how many points RCI will offer for their week, and they will be able to see what is available for that point level - and for the first time, they will see whether RCI considers it an even exchange or a downgrade.  That is bound to change people's behavior.  If exchangers don't know the differences between two resorts, some will pay more thinking the more "expensive" resort is bound to be better, but I suspect many more will choose the less expensive resort, resulting in higher demand, which may paradoxically cause a shift up for that resort, and a shift down for the other resort as demand decreases.  What will be telling will be RCI's response to the shifts in demand over time.

Steve, both Roger and I have tried to point out where we agree with some on your points, yet you persist in saying we "side" with RCI.  We do no such thing.  We simply view this from the point of understanding that RCI is a business, and their interests are not the same as ours.  Blaming RCI for all the ills of the timeshare industry is too convenient, and gives them too much credit.  There are many more big-name players in the industry now, and the whole atmosphere is different than the Crystal DeHaan days.  I'm not so sure RCI would have survived the way she ran it in this atmosphere.  15-20 years ago, the developers deposited their excess inventory to the exchange companies, which benefitted everyone - devepers got new blood in for presentations, RCI has inventory to fill exchange requests, and owners got the exchanges they wanted or escapes for cheap prices.  Back then, this was a cost-effective way to market to people who didn't own enough timeshare weeks to cover their needs.  But the developers aren't interested in that demographic anymore, and they can market their own weeks.  So now RCI doesn't have that developer inventory, unless they rent it from the developers.  I understand people want the deposits made available to exchangers, but that model will results in fewer exchanges into those new resorts - and the only way to stay at those new resorts when they are still new (new enough that the 20% of the weeks that have been sold will be used by their owners), will have to rent.  The absense of those weeks will also dilute the exchange pool.  

How about we all agree to meet back here a year from now, once the new system has been in place for a few months, and see where we are?  Maybe RCI will make things much worse, or maybe they have the potantial to make things much better - for both the exchangers and their own bottom line.  We'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## JudyS

Dave599 said:


> ... keep in mind that every time you join two deposits together to get a higher trade value its going to cost, don't expect RCI to let you do that for free.........So if you have a very low value
> week say like something in Orlando with a value of 10 and you want to go to say Hawaii with a value of 40 it will take 4 of your weeks to get that choice resort on the beach. So your 200.00 exchange plus 100 to joint the 2nd week and 100 to join the 3rd and 100 to join the 4th...


RCI Points doesn't charge anything to  join the points from two (or more) different deposits, so I'm not sure why Weeks would. With Points, you just pay the total number of points needed for a trade, plus one exchange fee. (There is a $24 fee for weeks-for-deposit, and a fee every three years for ceding points, but no fee for using multiple week's points for a single trade.)


----------



## Carolinian

JudyS said:


> RCI Points doesn't charge anything to  join the points from two (or more) different deposits, so I'm not sure why Weeks would. With Points, you just pay the total number of points needed for a trade, plus one exchange fee. (There is a $24 fee for weeks-for-deposit, and a fee every three years for ceding points, but no fee for using multiple week's points for a single trade.)



Where it costs is that you are joining two maintenance fees when you put two weeks together to get one out.  That becomes uneconomical in a big hurry.  Don't expect a run on low value weeks for people to combine them to take one week out.  That strategy is just nuts.  Instead, expect owners bailing out of low value weeks, all thanks to the tactics of RCI.


----------



## Carolinian

In fact, most timesharers do NOT know about their alternatives.  Many have only heard of RCI and do not know that there are other exchange companies they can use.  One of the things that needs to happen is for resorts to get proactive and educate their members about those alternatives.  Then maybe RCI will no longer have much of the industry by the short hairs.

Ever since Cendant took over RCI, the changes have been for the worse for timeshare owners and for affiliated resorts.  Cendant / Wyndham have looked at these only from the perspective of what is in their own short term financial benefit, not building a stable overall system for the longterm benefit of all players, including themselves.  Crystal deHahn, in creating RCI looked at the big pciture, but the new RCI does not.  Having seen what they have done so far, I am not so naive as to just sit back and hope it will be better this time.

As far as what way the status quo changes, any major change will obviously be cooking the books, as real supply / demand only changes dramatically when there is some dramatic event (like NO demand after Katrina). I beleive in a fair system, and oppose any thumb on the scales tactics, even if they did favor resorts where I own.  A long term stable system cannot be built with such cheating.

As to the ''big name player'' excuse, I posted a link some time back to an article in a trade magazine showing that the vast majority of timeshare units under construction or in the pipeline were from independent developers NOT the branded ''big names''.  This is a fallacy often repeated by RCI's supporters.

You use the fact that there has been some decline in developer deposits as an excuse for RCI's behavior.  But the real impact is that, given that background, RCI's taking even more prime inventory out to rent to the general public only makes the dilution of the exchange pool even more dramatic for members, and makes RCI an even bigger cad for doing so.




Mel said:


> But if the "status quo" as you call it changes significantly in the direction you wish it to change, will you still claim RCI is cooking the books?
> 
> People have enough choices in exchange companies, and it's not like the information about those exchange companies isn't freely available.  Once the numbers are available, people can make an informed decision.  They will be told how many points RCI will offer for their week, and they will be able to see what is available for that point level - and for the first time, they will see whether RCI considers it an even exchange or a downgrade.  That is bound to change people's behavior.  If exchangers don't know the differences between two resorts, some will pay more thinking the more "expensive" resort is bound to be better, but I suspect many more will choose the less expensive resort, resulting in higher demand, which may paradoxically cause a shift up for that resort, and a shift down for the other resort as demand decreases.  What will be telling will be RCI's response to the shifts in demand over time.
> 
> Steve, both Roger and I have tried to point out where we agree with some on your points, yet you persist in saying we "side" with RCI.  We do no such thing.  We simply view this from the point of understanding that RCI is a business, and their interests are not the same as ours.  Blaming RCI for all the ills of the timeshare industry is too convenient, and gives them too much credit.  There are many more big-name players in the industry now, and the whole atmosphere is different than the Crystal DeHaan days.  I'm not so sure RCI would have survived the way she ran it in this atmosphere.  15-20 years ago, the developers deposited their excess inventory to the exchange companies, which benefitted everyone - devepers got new blood in for presentations, RCI has inventory to fill exchange requests, and owners got the exchanges they wanted or escapes for cheap prices.  Back then, this was a cost-effective way to market to people who didn't own enough timeshare weeks to cover their needs.  But the developers aren't interested in that demographic anymore, and they can market their own weeks.  So now RCI doesn't have that developer inventory, unless they rent it from the developers.  I understand people want the deposits made available to exchangers, but that model will results in fewer exchanges into those new resorts - and the only way to stay at those new resorts when they are still new (new enough that the 20% of the weeks that have been sold will be used by their owners), will have to rent.  The absense of those weeks will also dilute the exchange pool.
> 
> How about we all agree to meet back here a year from now, once the new system has been in place for a few months, and see where we are?  Maybe RCI will make things much worse, or maybe they have the potantial to make things much better - for both the exchangers and their own bottom line.  We'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> In fact, most timesharers do NOT know about their alternatives.  Many have only heard of RCI and do not know that there are other exchange companies they can use.  One of the things that needs to happen is for resorts to get proactive and educate their members about those alternatives.  Then maybe RCI will no longer have much of the industry by the short hairs.


And I suppose it's RCI's fault that owners haven't made any effort to find out what other options they have?  For those with internet access, all they have to do is google "timeshare" and they can find loads of information.  Yes, it requires some work on their part, but not that much.  Do you honestly think people need to have the information served to them on a silver platter?


And then of course you have those who don't "trust" the smaller companies - yet they trusted the developer and his staff when they bought their timeshare!  It's not that the majority of owners don't know about other options - they have blinders on, and don't WANT to know about other options.  How many of us here have told friends (people we think trust us) about resale timeshares, and yet they still go out and buy from the developer, because they believe it can't possibly be the same product?  By all means educate the owners, but remember you can lead a horse to water, you can't force it to drink.


> Ever since Cendant took over RCI, the changes have been for the worse for timeshare owners and for affiliated resorts.  Cendant / Wyndham have looked at these only from the perspective of what is in their own short term financial benefit, not building a stable overall system for the longterm benefit of all players, including themselves.  Crystal deHahn, in creating RCI looked at the big pciture, but the new RCI does not.  Having seen what they have done so far, I am not so naive as to just sit back and hope it will be better this time.
> 
> As far as what way the status quo changes, any major change will obviously be cooking the books, as real supply / demand only changes dramatically when there is some dramatic event (like NO demand after Katrina). I beleive in a fair system, and oppose any thumb on the scales tactics, even if they did favor resorts where I own.  A long term stable system cannot be built with such cheating.


The thing is, we don't know how much the current system changes, so how are you going to measure a change, other than comparing indivudual resorts or individual areas?.  We see dramatic changes every time a large developer makes a bulk deposit!


> As to the ''big name player'' excuse, I posted a link some time back to an article in a trade magazine showing that the vast majority of timeshare units under construction or in the pipeline were from independent developers NOT the branded ''big names''.  This is a fallacy often repeated by RCI's supporters.


I never said the majority of new inventory was coming from "big name players."  I said there is more big-name involvement in the industry.  A significant portion of units are controlled by corporations that know how to market their own rentals.  Add to that some of the "smaller" names who have learned how to market on their own as well.  They don't need RCI the way they used to.  Yes, they use RCI as a product feature, but they don't need RCI to fill their rooms.


> You use the fact that there has been some decline in developer deposits as an excuse for RCI's behavior.  But the real impact is that, given that background, RCI's taking even more prime inventory out to rent to the general public only makes the dilution of the exchange pool even more dramatic for members, and makes RCI an even bigger cad for doing so.


Use these numbers as you wish, but if RCI has been growing, why have the number of exchanges decreased over time.  This is clipped from their own list of milestones:



> 1999 - RCI confirms more than 2.7 million exchanges, sending an estimated 7.5 million people on vacation; RCI world headquarters moves to Parsippany, N.J.
> 
> 
> 2000 - Ken May is appointed Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for RCI; RCI launches the world's first global points-based exchange system, RCI Points.
> 
> 
> 2001 - RCI introduces an exchange program for owners at private residence clubs; RCI establishes a representative office in Beijing, China.
> 
> 2002 - RCI launches a new Web site for members called the RCI Community; In the face of a post 9/11 travel slump, U.S. timeshare sales grow by 14 percent to $5.5 billion USD, further demonstrating timeshare's traditional resiliency; RCI acquires Hotel Dynamics, a leading provider of occupancy and revenue solutions to hospitality companies; RCI enters the vacation rental market with Holiday Network (sm), a worldwide vacation rental channel for consumers; RCI surpasses the three million member mark.
> 
> 2003 - RCI Points has 350,000 members; RCI opens new office in Dubai, UAE; RCI has 3,750 affiliated resorts located in 100 countries.
> 
> 2004 - RCI celebrates 30 years of great vacations! Ends year with over 3 million members, more than 3,700 affiliated resorts in 101 countries and 2.6 million member exchanges made.


RCI confirmed fewer exchanger in 2004 than in 1999.  It might simply mean more people didn't get the exchanges they wanted, or it might mean more people were using other options.  It's not just the developer inventory that has dropped - it's owners using other exchange companies... owners doing direct exchanges... owners renting out their prime weeks - all of which has been made easier over the last decade.  People aren't just posting a flyer on a local bulletin board to rent their week out anymore, why should we expect RCI to only rent through their bulleting board, to such a small market?  Owner X deposits a prime week, and wants to visit New Resort Y.  RCI doesn't have any New Resort Y inventory, and doesn't expect any because it just opened, and the new owners want to stay there.  RCI wants to Keep Owner X Happy, so they spend some money to aquire a week at New Resort Y.  They now have a choice:  Rent Owner X's week, or give it to Owner Z who really wants to visit Resort X, and rent the week from Resort Z.  If they do the latter, does that mean they raided Week Z from the exchange pool?

Do I think they're being completely honest about everything they do?  No, but I don't think they're going nearly as far as you think.


----------



## bnoble

The problem with having this discussion with Steve is that he already knows the answer, it's a simple answer, and the answer is "it's exclusively RCI's fault."  It doesn't matter that the internet has made it easier for owners to rent their time.  It doesn't matter that resorts no longer feel the need to deposit developer inventory for tour prospects, it doesn't matter that the independents have grown, and it doesn't matter that the information for all of these options is readily out there for any owner who wants it.  Why?  Because "it's exclusively RCI's fault."

I applaud you for trying, but if you get him to even consider the possibility of anything other than "it's exclusively RCI's fault", you'd be the first.


----------



## Dave599

JudyS said:


> RCI Points doesn't charge anything to  join the points from two (or more) different deposits, so I'm not sure why Weeks would. With Points, you just pay the total number of points needed for a trade, plus one exchange fee. (There is a $24 fee for weeks-for-deposit, and a fee every three years for ceding points, but no fee for using multiple week's points for a single trade.)



The amounts may not be accurate but I think you will see some sort of fee whether its 39.00 or 69.00 or 99.00 to join weeks you will pay for the service RCI is in business to make money......time will tell. I think the bottom line when the dust settles you will have a lot of very unhappy people who thought they had something with great trading value and they end up with junk......People in general do not understand trading value and whats important and whats not, they think the rating (gold crown etc) the season (red, white blue) the size (1br 2br etc) makes a lot of difference it does not, really 95% of trading value is supply and demand that's it....People bought into resorts being told its was gold crown red all year blah blah blah and they bought it hook line and sinker and there going to find they have a trading value of 5...........

Dave


----------



## Carolinian

The problem with having this discussion with the little group of regular RCI apologists is that they already know that whatever RCI is doing must be right.
They always find excuses that RCI's changes are the fault of someone else like the internet.  The overall impact of the internet on timeshare rentals is way overblown.  Rentals have ALWAYS been there, and the proportion of rentals, from what I have seen from actual resort records has not changed much.  Indeed a lot more of the rentals that are occuring are still coming from the more traditional sources like brick and mortar real estate offices, not RedWeek and the like.  Those who regularly defend RCI's practices just assume things, like their internet rental theory _must be_ true without any actual knowledge of the real facts on the ground.

And if you really think that knowledge of the alternatives to RCI is ''out there'' then I suggest that you casually bring up the subject of independent exchange companies at a resort orientation meeting or around the swimming pool or at an HOA meeting.  You just do not want HOA's to be proactive in getting this information out.  Why?  To circle the wagons around RCI.

Your answer to everything is simple:  ''Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain; the Great and Powerful RCI has spoken!''







bnoble said:


> The problem with having this discussion with Steve is that he already knows the answer, it's a simple answer, and the answer is "it's exclusively RCI's fault."  It doesn't matter that the internet has made it easier for owners to rent their time.  It doesn't matter that resorts no longer feel the need to deposit developer inventory for tour prospects, it doesn't matter that the independents have grown, and it doesn't matter that the information for all of these options is readily out there for any owner who wants it.  Why?  Because "it's exclusively RCI's fault."
> 
> I applaud you for trying, but if you get him to even consider the possibility of anything other than "it's exclusively RCI's fault", you'd be the first.


----------



## Carolinian

It is not RCI's responsibility to educate timesharers about their competitors.  Indeed, it would be contrary to their responsibility to shareholders to do so.

It IS the responsibility of HOA's and management to educate owners about alternatives, and generally I see a much better job of that in Europe, especially the UK, than in the US.  If members are not getting the information, yes, they do need to get it.  Why do you want to pooh-pooh getting our resorts more proactive in getting the info out?  Just to help protect RCI's quasi-monopoly?

Again, you make the assumption that RCI SHOULD rent!  Many of us believe that rentals create an inherent conflict of interest and they should NOT be allowed to rent.

As to what RCI is doing, you just do not want to believe the inside info that we have had from RCI employees like Bootleg on this board and Anon over at Timesharetalk.  The inside info they reveal blows away the defensive positions of RCI loyalists such as yourself.

As to prime weeks, I know from looking at resort records that the vast majority of those owners, at least in my area USE those weeks, so they don't get either rented or deposited.  Rental numbers have stayed the same over the long term for prime weeks.  One difference in our arguments, is that yours are often based on unsubstantiated theory and mine are based on real facts.





Mel said:


> And I suppose it's RCI's fault that owners haven't made any effort to find out what other options they have?  For those with internet access, all they have to do is google "timeshare" and they can find loads of information.  Yes, it requires some work on their part, but not that much.  Do you honestly think people need to have the information served to them on a silver platter?
> 
> 
> And then of course you have those who don't "trust" the smaller companies - yet they trusted the developer and his staff when they bought their timeshare!  It's not that the majority of owners don't know about other options - they have blinders on, and don't WANT to know about other options.  How many of us here have told friends (people we think trust us) about resale timeshares, and yet they still go out and buy from the developer, because they believe it can't possibly be the same product?  By all means educate the owners, but remember you can lead a horse to water, you can't force it to drink.
> The thing is, we don't know how much the current system changes, so how are you going to measure a change, other than comparing indivudual resorts or individual areas?.  We see dramatic changes every time a large developer makes a bulk deposit!
> I never said the majority of new inventory was coming from "big name players."  I said there is more big-name involvement in the industry.  A significant portion of units are controlled by corporations that know how to market their own rentals.  Add to that some of the "smaller" names who have learned how to market on their own as well.  They don't need RCI the way they used to.  Yes, they use RCI as a product feature, but they don't need RCI to fill their rooms.
> Use these numbers as you wish, but if RCI has been growing, why have the number of exchanges decreased over time.  This is clipped from their own list of milestones:
> 
> RCI confirmed fewer exchanger in 2004 than in 1999.  It might simply mean more people didn't get the exchanges they wanted, or it might mean more people were using other options.  It's not just the developer inventory that has dropped - it's owners using other exchange companies... owners doing direct exchanges... owners renting out their prime weeks - all of which has been made easier over the last decade.  People aren't just posting a flyer on a local bulletin board to rent their week out anymore, why should we expect RCI to only rent through their bulleting board, to such a small market?  Owner X deposits a prime week, and wants to visit New Resort Y.  RCI doesn't have any New Resort Y inventory, and doesn't expect any because it just opened, and the new owners want to stay there.  RCI wants to Keep Owner X Happy, so they spend some money to aquire a week at New Resort Y.  They now have a choice:  Rent Owner X's week, or give it to Owner Z who really wants to visit Resort X, and rent the week from Resort Z.  If they do the latter, does that mean they raided Week Z from the exchange pool?
> 
> Do I think they're being completely honest about everything they do?  No, but I don't think they're going nearly as far as you think.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> The problem with having this discussion with the little group of regular RCI apologists is that they already know that whatever RCI is doing must be right.
> They always find excuses that RCI's changes are the fault of someone else like the internet.  The overall impact of the internet on timeshare rentals is way overblown.  Rentals have ALWAYS been there, and the proportion of rentals, from what I have seen from actual resort records has not changed much.  Indeed a lot more of the rentals that are occuring are still coming from the more traditional sources like brick and mortar real estate offices, not RedWeek and the like.  Those who regularly defend RCI's practices just assume things, like their internet rental theory _must be_ true without any actual knowledge of the real facts on the ground.
> 
> And if you really think that knowledge of the alternatives to RCI is ''out there'' then I suggest that you casually bring up the subject of independent exchange companies at a resort orientation meeting or around the swimming pool or at an HOA meeting.  You just do not want HOA's to be proactive in getting this information out.  Why?  To circle the wagons around RCI.
> 
> Your answer to everything is simple:  ''Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain; the Great and Powerful RCI has spoken!''


Once again, name calling.  Anyone who doesn't agree with you is an "RCI appoligist."

None of us have said the HOAs shouldn't inform the owners about other possibilities, as you suggest.  And in fact I have discussed independant exchange companies with other owners around the pool.  Have I done it at an "orientation meeting?" No, because I don't stick around for most of those.  And if you want the HOA to do a presentation at those meetings, you'll first have to get an HOA representative at those meetings.  They are run by resort managements, not the HOA.
I have spoken to exchangers and owners who are aware of the smaller exchange companies, and most of them won't do business with them because they are so small.  There is comfort for them in dealing with RCI, a company they know.  Also, most of them are happy with RCI.  But then, I only exchange into resorts that interest me in the first place.  Maybe I'm just not exchanging into the dumps where most unhappy exchangers seem to end up.



Carolinian said:


> It is not RCI's responsibility to educate timesharers about their competitors.  Indeed, it would be contrary to their responsibility to shareholders to do so.
> 
> It IS the responsibility of HOA's and management to educate owners about alternatives, and generally I see a much better job of that in Europe, especially the UK, than in the US.  If members are not getting the information, yes, they do need to get it.  Why do you want to pooh-pooh getting our resorts more proactive in getting the info out?  Just to help protect RCI's quasi-monopoly?


Again, I'm not against owners being told, I just don't think it's RCI's responsibility.  By all means, get the HOAs to dual affiliate and let members know about all the other options.  But what I said was that the information is out there for anyone that takes the time to look.  Most of those that aren't looking aren't going to notice it when their resort tells them either.  Half of them probably don't read their newsletters, let alone the budgets the resorts send them.  Further, as you have pointed out so many times, the HOAs don't have that many members that exchange - they use their weeks - so they don't really have a vested interest in telling others about different options.  


Carolinian said:


> Again, you make the assumption that RCI SHOULD rent!  Many of us believe that rentals create an inherent conflict of interest and they should NOT be allowed to rent.
> 
> As to what RCI is doing, you just do not want to believe the inside info that we have had from RCI employees like Bootleg on this board and Anon over at Timesharetalk.  The inside info they reveal blows away the defensive positions of RCI loyalists such as yourself.
> 
> As to prime weeks, I know from looking at resort records that the vast majority of those owners, at least in my area USE those weeks, so they don't get either rented or deposited.  Rental numbers have stayed the same over the long term for prime weeks.  One difference in our arguments, is that yours are often based on unsubstantiated theory and mine are based on real facts.


Yes, I believe RCI should rent, because RCI rented even when Crystal DeHaan was involved.  Sure, they only rented to RCI members, but they did rent!  You beef is with rentals outside RCI.  Is it any less wrong to rent to RCI members than to the general public? 

As you say, resort records IN YOUR AREA show that owners use their weeks.  First, you can't necessarily extrapolate what happens in your area to all resorts.  Second, how does your data account for owners who rent privately, on their own?  As far as the resort is concerned those renters are guests of the owner.  Just because the unit wasn't rented through an agency doesn't mean it wasn't rented.  

The fact is that the world has changed.  We now live in the information age, and yet you think that has changed nothing!  Your facts may have been accurate 10 years ago, but they are not any longer.  RCI charges a great deal of money for those peak rentals.  Yet common sentiment right now is that you can get almost any rental for less than maintenance fees.  If that is true, then somebody is renting out those peak weeks.  I wonder who that is?  Can't have it both ways.


----------



## bnoble

Steve is welcome to call me names if he chooses.  His opinion of me is immaterial.

However, he characterizes my position incorrectly.  I do not think everything that RCI does is right.  For example, changing the trade power on already-deposited weeks last May was definitely foul play.  However, I also think the timeshare world is a little more complex than can be explained by "RCI did it."

His "facts on the ground" statement about how the Internet hasn't changed anything with regards to rentals is nice bluster, but doesn't hold water.  Anyone active on TUG has experienced how much easier it is to rent weeks now that markets are easier to find.  For example, while some have had some nice success in selling weeks at the local Mexican restaurant, I'm guessing that's not how most rent their weeks.

But, Steve could be right.  And if he is, then that would make timeshare rentals perhaps the only area of consumer commerce not completely revolutionized by the Internet.  Who knows?  But, I know which way Occam's Razor slices, and it's not in Steve's favor.

Edited: I missed another.  Steve also claims that I "just do not want HOA's to be proactive in getting this information out."  I've never said any such thing, but in his world, I suppose that anyone who thinks RCI is not the source of all evil must also naturally want to keep owners in the dark about their many choices.  To the contrary, more choices are great.

That said, anyone with a computer and the ability to spell "google" can learn about these options all by themselves, rather than wait for the HOA newsletter to speak truth to power.


----------



## Carolinian

The minimal impact of the internet on rentals is shown by actual numbers.  I compared for my own resort area the volume of timeshare rentals that were going through the local brick and morter timeshare specialist rental office with those on the major internet sites like RedWeek.  The numbers clearly show the internet rental volume to be a drop in the bucket.  I posted the actual numbers from that comparision back when I did it.  I also looked at my own resort and the frequency of rentals, and found that the advent of those internet sites did not change the percentage of weeks that were being rented.  I also spoke with managers at some other resorts in the area, and they comfirmed that rental percentages had essentially remained flat, with no appreciable increase from the advent of the internet rental sites.  You see I looked at the FACTS instead of, to use your own words of how you came to your own conclusions, ''guessing''.

You are one of the more recent posters who regularly supports RCI (yes, maybe not always, but most of the time).  Some of the small list of other regular supporters of the RCI party line go back as far as when I had my first taste of the new RCI and ceased to be an RCI Happy, as I had been previously.  That was when they rolled out RCI Points (GPN) and I began to see some of the pitfalls for members and resorts, especially weeks-based resorts and members, and resorts that did not have an ''in'' with RCI.

Indeed one of the very first arguments I had on TUG with a couple of those, especially one, who still regularly defend RCI came on the threads interpreting the moderated chat (by Fern Modena) with an RCI rep on the then soon to be announced Global Points Network (which later became RCI Points).  In the moderated chat, the RCI rep was asked what would become of the weeks that were exchanged for Points Parner items and the RCI rep said that they would be used to introduce people to timesharing.  Now, I put 2 and 2 together and suggested that this meant that RCI was going to be renting these weeks to the general public and pointed out the negative impacts of that.  I was the very first to predict the RCI rentals to the general public on TUG, also observing that RCI had to do something to pay for the Points Partner items, which meant either transfering the weeks themselves to the points partners, which I thought unlikely, or renting them and transfering cash.

One of the people who is still a regular RCI defender on these boards then jumped me and insisted that I was wrong and that RCI would absolutely not be renting these weeks to the general public.  We had quite a go-around about it at the time, and we have seen from the later events whose interpretation was correct.

You also do not go back to the time I posted the entire wording of a letter from RCI's CEO to its resort affiliates, in which he stated that RCI intended to use it's ''power as a market leader'' to ''take timesharing to the mass market''.
This came about the time of the GPN rollout, and I also offered the opinion, objected to vehemently by the regular little group of RCI defenders, that this meant widespread rentals to the general public.  But one thing was correct in that letter, that from your post you just do not want to acknowledge, and that is that from its market share, RCI is a 9000 pound gorrilla in timesharing and if it chooses to, it can distort markets.





bnoble said:


> Steve is welcome to call me names if he chooses.  His opinion of me is immaterial.
> 
> However, he characterizes my position incorrectly.  I do not think everything that RCI does is right.  For example, changing the trade power on already-deposited weeks last May was definitely foul play.  However, I also think the timeshare world is a little more complex than can be explained by "RCI did it."
> 
> His "facts on the ground" statement about how the Internet hasn't changed anything with regards to rentals is nice bluster, but doesn't hold water.  Anyone active on TUG has experienced how much easier it is to rent weeks now that markets are easier to find.  For example, while some have had some nice success in selling weeks at the local Mexican restaurant, I'm guessing that's not how most rent their weeks.
> 
> But, Steve could be right.  And if he is, then that would make timeshare rentals perhaps the only area of consumer commerce not completely revolutionized by the Internet.  Who knows?  But, I know which way Occam's Razor slices, and it's not in Steve's favor.
> 
> Edited: I missed another.  Steve also claims that I "just do not want HOA's to be proactive in getting this information out."  I've never said any such thing, but in his world, I suppose that anyone who thinks RCI is not the source of all evil must also naturally want to keep owners in the dark about their many choices.  To the contrary, more choices are great.
> 
> That said, anyone with a computer and the ability to spell "google" can learn about these options all by themselves, rather than wait for the HOA newsletter to speak truth to power.


----------



## Carolinian

What you said was that timesharers generally had knowledge of their alternatives in exchanging, certainly suggesting that there was no need for anyone to get the word out.  I took a contrary position that, in fact, most timesharers were not knowledgable about alternatives to RCI and that HOA's did have a duty to get that word out.  The most effective way to do that is in the HOA newsletter.  I did not suggest that HOA's do presentations at orientation meetings, as these are predominantly attended by non-owners and thus not the msot efficient way to reach owners.  If they wanted to do it, however, management does after all work for the HOA, and the HOA could simply direct that they do it.

Again, I have never suggested that RCI should be informing membes about their competition.  My point has always been that the HOA's should do it.  Even with the majority owning the use, the percentage who own to exchange is significant enough that major bailouts there could impact resort finances, so it is in the interest of the HOA to get the word out.

It is not just in my area that the majority of owners own to use and do not even belong to exchange companies.  I have found even higher percentages of own-to-use members in talking to resort managers in France and Germany, for example, and a similar number to the OBX in talking to resort managers in the UK and Austria.  Resort managers also tell me that they are hearing substantial numbers of complaints about RCI exchanges not being what they used to be, and growing dissatisfaction with RCI as an exchange company.

You want to look down your nose at resorts where people would be unhappy at the current state of RCI exchanges and characterize them as ''dumps''.  The orientation meetings I attended at RCI resorts where members present were complaining about the current state of RCI exchanges happened to be Gold Crown and quite difficult to exchange into, even in off season.  They have supply / demand curves light years better than your resorts in overbuilt Orlando.

You do not seem to comprehend that the ownership / exchange model of timesharing was built by Crystal deHahn and other around a principle of exclusivity.  When Cendant, as new owners of RCI decided to abandon this to take ''timesharing to the mass market'' they kicked the props out from under the system.  It is a slow motion train wreck, because many do not realize what is happening right away, but the bailout by exchangers is proceeding.  I had someone long involved in timeshare resale (brick and morter, not internet based) tell me that until five years ago she had rarely had clients putting their week up for sale cite problems with the exchange company as their reason for selling, but now it was by far the most common reason.

I don't usually attend orientation meetings either, but recently have attended three.  Two were at RCI resorts and one at an II resort.  What was dramatically different was that complaints about the exchange company were common at the RCI resorts but not an issue at all at the II resort.

In Orlando, people may almost always rent prime weeks for below maintenance fees, but that is not the case on the OBX, at least for those who know the right sources to rent through.  When we have rented out summer week, we have gotten over twice the m/f.  But the real negative impact on rental prices has come from RCI's own dumping, flooding the market with a massive supply increase of rentals availible to the general public, and thus depressing prices.  This is but one of the many very negative impacts on timeshare owners of RCI's massive rental to the public schemes.




Mel said:


> Once again, name calling.  Anyone who doesn't agree with you is an "RCI appoligist."
> 
> None of us have said the HOAs shouldn't inform the owners about other possibilities, as you suggest.  And in fact I have discussed independant exchange companies with other owners around the pool.  Have I done it at an "orientation meeting?" No, because I don't stick around for most of those.  And if you want the HOA to do a presentation at those meetings, you'll first have to get an HOA representative at those meetings.  They are run by resort managements, not the HOA.
> I have spoken to exchangers and owners who are aware of the smaller exchange companies, and most of them won't do business with them because they are so small.  There is comfort for them in dealing with RCI, a company they know.  Also, most of them are happy with RCI.  But then, I only exchange into resorts that interest me in the first place.  Maybe I'm just not exchanging into the dumps where most unhappy exchangers seem to end up.
> 
> Again, I'm not against owners being told, I just don't think it's RCI's responsibility.  By all means, get the HOAs to dual affiliate and let members know about all the other options.  But what I said was that the information is out there for anyone that takes the time to look.  Most of those that aren't looking aren't going to notice it when their resort tells them either.  Half of them probably don't read their newsletters, let alone the budgets the resorts send them.  Further, as you have pointed out so many times, the HOAs don't have that many members that exchange - they use their weeks - so they don't really have a vested interest in telling others about different options.
> 
> Yes, I believe RCI should rent, because RCI rented even when Crystal DeHaan was involved.  Sure, they only rented to RCI members, but they did rent!  You beef is with rentals outside RCI.  Is it any less wrong to rent to RCI members than to the general public?
> 
> As you say, resort records IN YOUR AREA show that owners use their weeks.  First, you can't necessarily extrapolate what happens in your area to all resorts.  Second, how does your data account for owners who rent privately, on their own?  As far as the resort is concerned those renters are guests of the owner.  Just because the unit wasn't rented through an agency doesn't mean it wasn't rented.
> 
> The fact is that the world has changed.  We now live in the information age, and yet you think that has changed nothing!  Your facts may have been accurate 10 years ago, but they are not any longer.  RCI charges a great deal of money for those peak rentals.  Yet common sentiment right now is that you can get almost any rental for less than maintenance fees.  If that is true, then somebody is renting out those peak weeks.  I wonder who that is?  Can't have it both ways.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> What you said was that timesharers generally had knowledge of their alternatives in exchanging, certainly suggesting that there was no need for anyone to get the word out.


No, I said the informtion is readily available to those who seek it. Consider all the new owners that manage to find us here before the end of their recision period.  But they are actively seeking the information.  I'm sorry, but those who don't look for the information that's readily available probably don't read their resort newsletters either, so any attempt to educate them is going to fall shorr.





Carolinian said:


> I took a contrary position that, in fact, most timesharers were not knowledgable about alternatives to RCI and that HOA's did have a duty to get that word out.  The most effective way to do that is in the HOA newsletter.


No, I said the informtion is readily available to those who seek it. Consider all the new owners that manage to find us here before the end of their recision period.  But they are actively seeking the information.  I'm sorry, but those who don't look for the information that's readily available probably don't read their resort newsletters either, so any attempt to educate them is going to fall shorr.


Carolinian said:


> Again, I have never suggested that RCI should be informing membes about their competition.  My point has always been that the HOA's should do it.  Even with the majority owning the use, the percentage who own to exchange is significant enough that major bailouts there could impact resort finances, so it is in the interest of the HOA to get the word out.


By all means, have them get the word out.  But don't be surprised when people STILL don't "know" about the other options.





Carolinian said:


> It is not just in my area that the majority of owners own to use and do not even belong to exchange companies.  I have found even higher percentages of own-to-use members in talking to resort managers in France and Germany, for example, and a similar number to the OBX in talking to resort managers in the UK and Austria.  Resort managers also tell me that they are hearing substantial numbers of complaints about RCI exchanges not being what they used to be, and growing dissatisfaction with RCI as an exchange company.


But are those owner complaining because they can no longer get the best of the best of exchanges?  If they were offering the best of the best 15 years ago, I bet their resorts are NOT the best of the best any more.  If they don't like RCI, then they need to look for other options.  Again, the information is readily availabe for those who look.





Carolinian said:


> You want to look down your nose at resorts where people would be unhappy at the current state of RCI exchanges and characterize them as ''dumps''.  [\QUOTE] Not what I said, another mischaracterization.  The general consensus at the resorts I've traded into has been of being relatively happy with RCI.  If people are generally unhappy, it sounds like THEY consider the exchanges they're getting to be inferior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carolinian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The orientation meetings I attended at RCI resorts where members present were complaining about the current state of RCI exchanges happened to be Gold Crown and quite difficult to exchange into, even in off season.  They have supply / demand curves light years better than your resorts in overbuilt Orlando.
> 
> 
> 
> How is it then, that I get decent exchanges with not just my Orlando week (only one), and my Panama City Beach weeks?  How is it that Orange Lake doesn't have availability for every single check-in date for the next 6 months?  If those resorts are that great, why are they complaining about the state of RCI exchanges?  They got prime weeks as exchanges!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carolinian said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not seem to comprehend that the ownership / exchange model of timesharing was built by Crystal deHahn and other around a principle of exclusivity.  When Cendant, as new owners of RCI decided to abandon this to take ''timesharing to the mass market'' they kicked the props out from under the system.  It is a slow motion train wreck, because many do not realize what is happening right away, but the bailout by exchangers is proceeding.  I had someone long involved in timeshare resale (brick and morter, not internet based) tell me that until five years ago she had rarely had clients putting their week up for sale cite problems with the exchange company as their reason for selling, but now it was by far the most common reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't seem to comprehend that the entry of the major Hotel groups into timeshares was already introducing timehsare to the masses.  If timeshares were only going to be marketed to current owners, there has to be a saturation point - and we passed it a long time ago.  If the market is saturated with too many timeshare weeks, blame the developer, not the exchange companies.
> 
> 
> Carolinian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't usually attend orientation meetings either, but recently have attended three.  Two were at RCI resorts and one at an II resort.  What was dramatically different was that complaints about the exchange company were common at the RCI resorts but not an issue at all at the II resort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice statistical sample - nobody complained about II at one resort, so nobody dislikes II.  People complained at two resorts, so everybody hates RCI.  In system where some people trade up, leaving others to trade down, there will always be some who will complain.  You are all for reducing the trade power of points resorts you think are overvalued - but what about weeks resorts that are also overvalued.  Shouldn't RCI balance those out too?  Maybe some of those who are complaining about a reduction in trade value were trading up more than they should have in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carolinian said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Orlando, people may almost always rent prime weeks for below maintenance fees, but that is not the case on the OBX, at least for those who know the right sources to rent through.  When we have rented out summer week, we have gotten over twice the m/f.  But the real negative impact on rental prices has come from RCI's own dumping, flooding the market with a massive supply increase of rentals availible to the general public, and thus depressing prices.  This is but one of the many very negative impacts on timeshare owners of RCI's massive rental to the public schemes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of the RCI rentals I have seen have been above the cost of maintenance fees, so how is that depressing prices?  Sure there is a glut of rentals, but that is due to the glut of weeks - not due to RCI, but due to the developers.
> 
> It would be great if resorts could be built in the areas with real demand - Paris, London, Rome... but without a point system, or something similar, the only advantage will be to those who own at those resorts.  They will form their own mini-system and exchange within their own group.  Perhaps with this new system there will be true incentive for those resorts to participate.  The Paris owner has one ownership that allows him to take 3 weeks of vacation elsewhere, or use his one home week.  When he exchanges, other owners give up 2 or 3 of their weeks to take a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Paris.  Is that really that much different than SFX or DAE offering a bonus week for the deposit of that Paris week, and charging an upgrade fee to the person who trades in?
Click to expand...


----------



## Carolinian

*ALL* the new owners ''who manage to find TUG before the end of their recission period''???!!!  What tiny, tiny fraction of all the new purchasers do you really think that is???

Most people would have no idea that independent exchange companies even exist, so they would have no reason to go looking for them.  That is why it is important that HOA's be proactive to get the information out.  At the European resorts I have been at where the resorts do that, there is widespread knowledge among the owners. based on those I spoke with the week I was there and the deposits I see online from those resorts.  So when the resorts get the word out, it works.

New does not mean ''best''.  Allen House, for example, has been around for decades, but it still trumps most ''new'' resorts in desirability.  Also in many beach areas, it is the older resorts that sit on the oceanfront, which is far more desirable to most timesharers than a ''new'' resort where you have to drive to the beach.  The land prices have been too high in recent years for newer resorts to build right on the beach.

As to people complaining because of them being in ''inferior'' exchanges, if you had read my comments on the earlier thread which had more detail, most of those attending at the UK meetings had not exchanged in, but were owners, and many of them had exchanged with RCI in the past, but now had either quit entirely, or only gave RCI their lesser weeks, like in the Canary Islands, but not their UK weeks.  With one exception, they were not people who had exchanged in to that resort using RCI.  The resort they own at, and whose meeting they were at, IS great, but the resorts RCI would offer them as exchanges elsewhere had gone far downhill.  That is why they were either using their weeks, giving them to an independent exchange company, or renting them.

Hotel groups are only a small fraction of timesharing, and do nothing to change the basic principles of timesharing.  There is certainly nothing that they do which would justify RCI's major changes in operation which are detrimental to the ownership / exchange model of timesharing.  The problem is not introducing the concept of timesharing to the masses.  I have no problem with that.  The problem was that this was RCI's euphemism for going into mass rental of timeshare weeks from its spacebank.  It is the mass rentals to the general public that are a bad thing.

DAE does NOT charge upgrade fees.  I have just joined SFX but from the questions I asked on Ask SFX, it does not appear that they do so.

As to Paris, Royal Regency is too far out in Vincennes for me to have much interest in trading in.  Going to Paris, I would much rather find a hotel deal on Booking.com for a well located hotel.  I have actually seen Royal Regency online several times, including summer, and passed it up.  Allen House (London) I have only seen online once, which was for late November, and in the time I debated to myself whether I really wanted it at that time of year, someone else grabbed it.

A trading power system does everything that a points system does for high demand owners, except allow them to go slumming, but those who buy such weeks would likely want similar weeks, and not three weeks in the boondocks.

A dynamic trading power system like the current Weeks system DOES balance out values by constantly adjusting to ever changing supply and demand factors.  A frozen system like Points does not.

As to the market being saturated, I was referring to the RENTAL market being saturated after RCI started dumping many thousands of timeshare weeks from the spacebank onto the rental market, knocking the props out from under it.  While developers may indeed saturate the sales market, they have absolutely nothing to do with RCI's dumping of all those rentals, crashing the market.

As to RCI's rental prices, you must not be looking very hard.  I have personally scored several RCI rentals so far at desirable resorts at desirable times for well under m/f, indeed a couple of them at about half of m/f.




Mel said:


> No, I said the informtion is readily available to those who seek it. Consider all the new owners that manage to find us here before the end of their recision period.  But they are actively seeking the information.  I'm sorry, but those who don't look for the information that's readily available probably don't read their resort newsletters either, so any attempt to educate them is going to fall shorr.
> No, I said the informtion is readily available to those who seek it. Consider all the new owners that manage to find us here before the end of their recision period.  But they are actively seeking the information.  I'm sorry, but those who don't look for the information that's readily available probably don't read their resort newsletters either, so any attempt to educate them is going to fall shorr.
> By all means, have them get the word out.  But don't be surprised when people STILL don't "know" about the other options.But are those owner complaining because they can no longer get the best of the best of exchanges?  If they were offering the best of the best 15 years ago, I bet their resorts are NOT the best of the best any more.  If they don't like RCI, then they need to look for other options.  Again, the information is readily availabe for those who look. Not what I said, another mischaracterization.  The general consensus at the resorts I've traded into has been of being relatively happy with RCI.  If people are generally unhappy, it sounds like THEY consider the exchanges they're getting to be inferior.  How is it then, that I get decent exchanges with not just my Orlando week (only one), and my Panama City Beach weeks?  How is it that Orange Lake doesn't have availability for every single check-in date for the next 6 months?  If those resorts are that great, why are they complaining about the state of RCI exchanges?  They got prime weeks as exchanges!  You don't seem to comprehend that the entry of the major Hotel groups into timeshares was already introducing timehsare to the masses.  If timeshares were only going to be marketed to current owners, there has to be a saturation point - and we passed it a long time ago.  If the market is saturated with too many timeshare weeks, blame the developer, not the exchange companies.
> Nice statistical sample - nobody complained about II at one resort, so nobody dislikes II.  People complained at two resorts, so everybody hates RCI.  In system where some people trade up, leaving others to trade down, there will always be some who will complain.  You are all for reducing the trade power of points resorts you think are overvalued - but what about weeks resorts that are also overvalued.  Shouldn't RCI balance those out too?  Maybe some of those who are complaining about a reduction in trade value were trading up more than they should have in the past.  Most of the RCI rentals I have seen have been above the cost of maintenance fees, so how is that depressing prices?  Sure there is a glut of rentals, but that is due to the glut of weeks - not due to RCI, but due to the developers.
> 
> It would be great if resorts could be built in the areas with real demand - Paris, London, Rome... but without a point system, or something similar, the only advantage will be to those who own at those resorts.  They will form their own mini-system and exchange within their own group.  Perhaps with this new system there will be true incentive for those resorts to participate.  The Paris owner has one ownership that allows him to take 3 weeks of vacation elsewhere, or use his one home week.  When he exchanges, other owners give up 2 or 3 of their weeks to take a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Paris.  Is that really that much different than SFX or DAE offering a bonus week for the deposit of that Paris week, and charging an upgrade fee to the person who trades in?


----------



## rickandcindy23

The only time Orlando is hard to get is last minute during prime times.  You can get Orlando 6-12 months out, because most people don't plan ahead.  

In II, Marriotts are always available for prime summer dates until about 3 months out, then suddenly they are all gone.  If you forget to plan a vacation, you can always get Orlando 3 months out, so people let the inventory decide where they will go.  Crazy hot in the summer!  I am done with that.   

It is the HOA's responsibility to inform its owners of alternate exchange companies.  My own personal campaign for our two Colorado resorts, and I need to contact Foxrun's board and have them send a list of exchange companies.


----------



## bnoble

> You are one of the more recent posters who regularly supports RCI (yes, maybe not always, but most of the time).


Again, I think you mis-state my position.  I'm on record (in several different times, and in several different places) stating that individual owners are *not* RCI's customers.  RCI's customers are the resort developers and, to a lesser extent, the larger management companies.  On this, I think we agree.  Developers do RCI's marketing for them, and so naturally RCI looks to make developers happy.  Large management companies often make substantial affiliation decisions---that's not as valuable as the initial marketing effort, but it's not bad.  So, they get some play too.  When you are both a large developer and a management company, you get a lot of attention.

As a concrete example: imagine for a moment what RCI must have given Disney to get them to switch from II.  And, while Disney is in high demand, they aren't that big.  Imagine instead what RCI would give *Marriott*.

Much of what RCI does has been to my personal detriment.  I'd be better off if they didn't rent weeks to non-timeshare owners.  I would be better off had Points never been created (because that inventory is inaccessible to me.)  I was better off before the trade power revaluation of 5/30/09.

But, I understand why they are doing what they do.  Renting weeks generates income.  Points was a nice bone for developers to resell what they'd already sold.  The trade power revaluation makes some of the "new shiny" resorts more valuable---and those are the resorts being built by active developers.  (Though, somehow, Wyndham got the short end of that stick.  Go figure!)

And, sometimes, the things they do are even helpful to me---some of those rentals are a good way for me to get access to inventory less expensively than any other way, for example.  Are they going for less than owners are paying in fees?  Sometimes.  Whether I think that's a good idea or a bad one depends on which side of the transaction I'm on.  If I recall correctly, you've said as much yourself.  So, we still might have some common ground on the rental question.

The rumored move to a credit based system will, on the whole, probably also benefit me as well, because I am willing to spend "a week and change" to get some of the exchanges I cannot currently obtain, and depending on how they handle Wyndham point deposits in this brave new world, I may actually be quite a bit to the good.  You seem to be convinced that the credit system is just one more nail in the timesharing coffin.  Time will tell, but I suspect your concern has more to do with the Points value of a handful of OBX resorts than any broader issue.

Where you and I differ most significantly, I think, is that I don't really care if (that) RCI is evil.  All I care about is whether or not RCI delivers value to me and my family, and whether or not it allows me to take the vacations I desire at a cost I am comfortable with.  And, to date, RCI does that.  What's more, even with all the changes they have implemented, their sheer size provides value that has not been matched by Interval or the independents for my particular needs.  So, for me, RCI really is the "best option".

I'm not sure that's "support" for RCI, so much as a weighing of the pros and cons and an acceptance of what they do in return for what they provide for me.  If you want to label me as a "supporter" of RCI for this position, that's your prerogative.


----------



## Carolinian

My own perspective is as a former HOA board member and president and the knowledge that has given me of what makes the system work.  If I use the OBX often as an example, it is because that is geographically where I know timeshare best.  Personally, as to where I currently own, I have more weeks in Europe than on the OBX.  Even with an employment change that included a move of thousands of miles, requiring me to resign as HOA president as it was no longer practical to serve, I still like to talk shop with resort managers when I exchange.  Most of my exchanges over the past few years have been in Europe, and it amazes me in talking with resort managers in various European countries how similar the issues they deal with are to the issues we dealt with on the OBX, and how similar members concerns are.  The perception that exchanging through RCI has gotten noticibly worse is a very common perception.

The genius of RCI was the genius of Crystal deHahn.  She realized that an exchange system that worked simultaneously for resorts, for members, and for RCI was in the best interests of all.  Under deHahn, RCI created the best timeshare exchange system that has ever existed.  After Cendant took over, they came in with a different perspective, being willing to knife resorts and members in the back in order to grab more profit for themselves.  While Crystal deHahn understood how the concept of exclusivity was the glue that held the system together, Cendant abandoned this with its rentals to the general public schemes.

As to big developers, Cendant crapped in its mess kit with GPN / RCI Points.  Several major developers on both sides of the Atlantic bailed out to II over points soon after it was introduced by RCI.  Cendant had to actually go out and purchase two of those major developers to bring them back to RCI.

With the continuing downgrades of RCI's exchange system, it has been a long time since I kept more than one week at a time with RCI.  Now I want to find an acceptable trade for the one week stuck there, and then I will be done with RCI for exchanging.  I have no interest in an exact number system personally, although as long as I can keep renting decent weeks from RCI for half of  m/f, then I will keep doing business with them for rentals.  I am a big believer in getting the word out on independent exchange companies, as I believe that is what ultimately will save timesharing.  When I buy timeshares, I do so with weeks with low supply and high demand and I expect them to trade for similar weeks.  So far, with independents, even ones that do not assign trading power, I have had pretty good luck with that, although with RCI it gets harder all the time.





bnoble said:


> Again, I think you mis-state my position.  I'm on record (in several different times, and in several different places) stating that individual owners are *not* RCI's customers.  RCI's customers are the resort developers and, to a lesser extent, the larger management companies.  On this, I think we agree.  Developers do RCI's marketing for them, and so naturally RCI looks to make developers happy.  Large management companies often make substantial affiliation decisions---that's not as valuable as the initial marketing effort, but it's not bad.  So, they get some play too.  When you are both a large developer and a management company, you get a lot of attention.
> 
> As a concrete example: imagine for a moment what RCI must have given Disney to get them to switch from II.  And, while Disney is in high demand, they aren't that big.  Imagine instead what RCI would give *Marriott*.
> 
> Much of what RCI does has been to my personal detriment.  I'd be better off if they didn't rent weeks to non-timeshare owners.  I would be better off had Points never been created (because that inventory is inaccessible to me.)  I was better off before the trade power revaluation of 5/30/09.
> 
> But, I understand why they are doing what they do.  Renting weeks generates income.  Points was a nice bone for developers to resell what they'd already sold.  The trade power revaluation makes some of the "new shiny" resorts more valuable---and those are the resorts being built by active developers.  (Though, somehow, Wyndham got the short end of that stick.  Go figure!)
> 
> And, sometimes, the things they do are even helpful to me---some of those rentals are a good way for me to get access to inventory less expensively than any other way, for example.  Are they going for less than owners are paying in fees?  Sometimes.  Whether I think that's a good idea or a bad one depends on which side of the transaction I'm on.  If I recall correctly, you've said as much yourself.  So, we still might have some common ground on the rental question.
> 
> The rumored move to a credit based system will, on the whole, probably also benefit me as well, because I am willing to spend "a week and change" to get some of the exchanges I cannot currently obtain, and depending on how they handle Wyndham point deposits in this brave new world, I may actually be quite a bit to the good.  You seem to be convinced that the credit system is just one more nail in the timesharing coffin.  Time will tell, but I suspect your concern has more to do with the Points value of a handful of OBX resorts than any broader issue.
> 
> Where you and I differ most significantly, I think, is that I don't really care if (that) RCI is evil.  All I care about is whether or not RCI delivers value to me and my family, and whether or not it allows me to take the vacations I desire at a cost I am comfortable with.  And, to date, RCI does that.  What's more, even with all the changes they have implemented, their sheer size provides value that has not been matched by Interval or the independents for my particular needs.  So, for me, RCI really is the "best option".
> 
> I'm not sure that's "support" for RCI, so much as a weighing of the pros and cons and an acceptance of what they do in return for what they provide for me.  If you want to label me as a "supporter" of RCI for this position, that's your prerogative.


----------



## timeos2

*Own at smaller, owner controlled resorts to use and enjoy*



rickandcindy23 said:


> The only time Orlando is hard to get is last minute during prime times.  You can get Orlando 6-12 months out, because most people don't plan ahead.
> 
> In II, Marriotts are always available for prime summer dates until about 3 months out, then suddenly they are all gone.  If you forget to plan a vacation, you can always get Orlando 3 months out, so people let the inventory decide where they will go.  Crazy hot in the summer!  I am done with that.
> 
> It is the HOA's responsibility to inform its owners of alternate exchange companies.  My own personal campaign for our two Colorado resorts, and I need to contact Foxrun's board and have them send a list of exchange companies.



Actually any specific, smaller resort / time / unit size you desire in Orlando can be tough to get unless you own there. If you deal with the mega-resorts like OLCC, Vistana, the multiple Marriotts, Wastegate - those are almost always out there for the asking. But the "boutique" type - maybe those that take pets or have a far better than average location - can be tough nearly year round. Thats why we own at our favorites (and one not so favorite anymore) no matter where they might be located. By owning we know we can get what we want when we want and at a predictable price. When necessary we have found they trade extremely well as what appeals to us also appeals to traders/renters. It just makes sense.  So owning in a so-called "overbuilt" area for the right reason - the only reason to own anywhere really - to USE can make Orlando or Vegas or anywhere else a good deal. Owning to use is the ultimate in being a satisfied timesharer.  Owning to trade is a virtual lock to be at best a disillusioned owner and maybe worse.


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> ...The genius of RCI was the genius of Crystal deHahn. ...As to big developers, Cendant crapped in its mess kit with GPN / RCI Points.  Several major developers on both sides of the Atlantic bailed out to II over points soon after it was introduced by RCI.  Cendant has to actually go out and purchase two of those major developers to bring them back to RCI.....


  Why I don't think Crystal deHahn invented the best system ever:


"You can trade red for red"  This was the mantra of the timeshare salespeople in the Crystal deHahn era.  People made (and still do) $15,000, $20,000 mistakes by thinking that they could trade their off season timeshare (possibly in an overbuilt area) for anything in the vacation book.  _This is why the reputation of timesharing used to be (and still is) largely in the gutter._  When people make the sizable investment that timesharing requires they simply deserve to know the trading power of what they are buying rather than having to rely on the word of a timeshare salesperson.

The ever changing supply and demand factors leave people at the mercy of not knowing if they are depositing at a good time or a bad one.  If someone banks right after a bulk spacebank, their trade power is much diminished.  RCI encourages people to bank early, but (as confirmed by JLB's friend at RCI), if they bank too early, they might fall prey to low demand at the time and end  up with poor trading power.  Likewise, it is probably not wise to bank right after maintenance fees are due because many other owners at the same resort will be banking at the same time.  How do you know if you are depositing at the right time?  There is no way to know.

If someone has a truly valuable unit, they should get the full worth of it.  As it stands, the holy grail for a sizable number of people who appear on TUG (not the necessarily the majority thankfully) is to try to learn how to trade up, have the lowest maintenance fees, etc. and let those who don't make studying all the ins and outs of timesharing  suffer for their ignorance.  Timesharing should be simple and not require a full time commitment to studying the ins and outs of how to bait and switch, etc.

Personally, I am so glad to see this system go.

With regard to the developers that bailed out and Cendent then bought did they use the Crystal deHahn system or points?  (I think that this is relevant to this thread.  I am surprised you didn't mention it.)

[By the way, it does not surprise me that Hyatt, Disney, Hilton, all of whom have very good reputations, chose to sell points and tell their clientel what they were buying.  Apparently, they did not share your view of the deHahn system.]


----------



## Mel

Thank you Roger - this is precisely why I'm looking forward to what RCI is planning to offer with their new system.  While the old RCI system, under Crystal DeHaan worked well for many owners, it did not work well for everybody, and it had significant flaws which became more obvious as the market grew. 

I agree points was a mistake from the perspective of individual owners, but perhaps RCI has a way to make things right.  We can all lament that they didn't do this in the first place, but as you say, we are not their real customers.


----------



## Carolinian

Roger, did you not know that timeshare salesmen will lie, no matter what they are selling?  It happens just as much in points.  The case in point is Sunterra's essentially fraudulent marketing of almost useless small points packages, that spawned groups like the Scottish Action Group Against Sunterra and websites like www.sunterror.com (or it might have been .co.uk) and www.sunterrified.com (or perhaps .co.uk).  There was also efforts at litigation, picketing of Sunterra sales sites (the Scottish group had a retired ambulance repainted with anti-Sunterra slogans as the ''SCAMbulance'' which they drove to the anti-Sunterra protests).  Eventually, when whistle blower Ian Podesta came forward, Sunterra's rampant points scams brought down their whole house of cards.

But it is not just Sunterra.  Points scams are even more rampant in South Africa with Stuart ''The Bullfrog'' Lamont and his notorious Club Leisure Group and others.  The godfather of South African timeshare points programs was, appropriately, a former loan shark, or tallyman, as they are called in SA.  And if you trace the ancestry of RCI Points it goes right back to Lamont and his frauds.

A points system is akin to rent control - rigging values and then freezing them.  That completely goes against market principles of supply and demand.

The deHahn system looked out for the interests of all components of timesharing.  The Cendant system only looks out for the short term interests of RCI itself.  It kicks the props out from under the system which resorts were built on and is a clear and present danger to resorts.  If resorts get in finacial trouble or go belly up, the points worshippers ought to realize that this is going to bite individual timeshare owners in the rear end.  Points worshippers often ignore the financial impact on resorts.   The bailouts triggered by RCI's changes have already started and are an ongoing process, a slow motion train wreck that is a major threat to resorts.


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> Roger, did you not know that timeshare salesmen will lie, no matter what they are selling? ...


I take this to be your response to my first point.  Yes, they lie and will still lie after RCI reveals the value of what they are selling.  Does that mean we should keep the trade values secret so that the salespeople will have a clear field to lie about one of the most important (probably the most important) factor that people consider when buying - what can I trade for?  ("Red for red" "You will have a timeshare in one of the most sought out areas in the country.  You can trade anywhere." etc.)  I believe consummers should be given as much relevant information as possible relevant to their buying decisions and trade power ranks right at the top of the list.

I also still stand behind point number two and point number three in my previous post. (Not addressed in your post.) 

Finally, later in your post you try to paint all points systems as dishonest.  I stand behind my final statement that Hyatt, Disney, and Hilton all have good reputations and have decided to reveal to their buyers the value of their units within their own point systems.  I don't think bringing up Bullfrog is even relevant here.

All of this is makes my response one that speaks dead square to the opening post in the loooong, looong thread ("RCI to offer value transparency").  In my opinion it is not just good news, but great news.  (...and I have nothing to gain personally from this.)

One thing that the two of us do agreed upon is that the measure of the success of a class action lawsuit shoud be measured in terms of the corrective action that results and not personal gain (dollars, trinkets, etc.).  In my opinion, the lawsuit has forced RCI to take a large corrective step that will benefit timesharing.  Knowledge is power.


----------



## rickandcindy23

timeos2 said:


> Actually any specific, smaller resort / time / unit size you desire in Orlando can be tough to get unless you own there. If you deal with the mega-resorts like OLCC, Vistana, the multiple Marriotts, Wastegate - those are almost always out there for the asking. But the "boutique" type - maybe those that take pets or have a far better than average location - can be tough nearly year round.



I disagree.  As long as you look a year out, you can get any date at any resort you want.  My average-to-low trader in RCI can see prime summer weeks.  It's too easy to get Orlando.  

I would rather stay at Marriott's Cypress Habour than any other resort, and it's easy to get with my weeks.  I am pretty happy with my ability to get Orlando, and there are nearly 100 resorts in the Orlando area, most of which aren't worthy, when the great resorts are available to us.

Do you look at the inventory RCI has for Cypress Pointe, for example?  Lots of prime summer for next year, with only July 4th week missing.  I wouldn't go July 4th.  Maybe I don't have enough trading power to get July 4th.  

I don't believe in buying where I want to go.  I love the idea of points and exchanging with my weeks, getting bonus weeks for my deposits from II.  

RCI Points for Deposit gets my weeks after I try searching with them for a while.  Crappy, terrible availability in Hawaii and elsewhere with my weeks, but Orlando, not difficult at all, even with my BLUE week.


----------



## Carolinian

But having HONEST numbers from a transparent system to setting numbers is something you don't seem bothered about.  I know why those who own in overbuilt areas want a published number system but are allergic to an open and aboveboard system of setting numbers.  It is because in an open and aboveboard system, their resorts would not get the numbers they want.  That's why they support keeping the method of setting the numbers secret.

I DID address your other points.  If a system cannot honestly and accurately adjust for the fact that Thanksgiving alternates between weeks 46 and 47, it is an unfair and dishonest system. The weeks system is flexible enough to make that adjustment, but I have yet to see a points system flexible enought to do so.  Thanksgiving is just the most glaring example of how the excessive rigidity of points systems is disadvantageous to timesharers.  I have pointed out for years that an electronically published points system would be superior to a paper and ink published points system because the values can be made more flexible to adjust for changes in supply and demand.




"Roger" said:


> I take this to be your response to my first point.  Yes, they lie and will still lie after RCI reveals the value of what they are selling.  Does that mean we should keep the trade values secret so that the salespeople will have a clear field to lie about one of the most important (probably the most important) factor that people consider when buying - what can I trade for?  ("Red for red" "You will have a timeshare in one of the most sought out areas in the country.  You can trade anywhere." etc.)  I believe consummers should be given as much relevant information as possible relevant to their buying decisions and trade power ranks right at the top of the list.
> 
> I also still stand behind point number two and point number three in my previous post. (Not addressed in your post.)
> 
> Finally, later in your post you try to paint all points systems as dishonest.  I stand behind my final statement that Hyatt, Disney, and Hilton all have good reputations and have decided to reveal to their buyers the value of their units within their own point systems.  I don't think bringing up Bullfrog is even relevant here.
> 
> All of this is makes my response one that speaks dead square to the opening post in the loooong, looong thread ("RCI to offer value transparency").  In my opinion it is not just good news, but great news.  (...and I have nothing to gain personally from this.)
> 
> One thing that the two of us do agreed upon is that the measure of the success of a class action lawsuit shoud be measured in terms of the corrective action that results and not personal gain (dollars, trinkets, etc.).  In my opinion, the lawsuit has forced RCI to take a large corrective step that will benefit timesharing.  Knowledge is power.


----------



## Carolinian

One thing that you and I agree on, John, is that sold out, homeowner-controlled resorts with large own-to-use ownership bases are the most stable of timeshares.  Smart HOA's target their resales to own-to-use audiences.

I have traded into some European timeshares where the own-to-use ownership base exceeds 90%.  I have not seen it that high in the states.




timeos2 said:


> Actually any specific, smaller resort / time / unit size you desire in Orlando can be tough to get unless you own there. If you deal with the mega-resorts like OLCC, Vistana, the multiple Marriotts, Wastegate - those are almost always out there for the asking. But the "boutique" type - maybe those that take pets or have a far better than average location - can be tough nearly year round. Thats why we own at our favorites (and one not so favorite anymore) no matter where they might be located. By owning we know we can get what we want when we want and at a predictable price. When necessary we have found they trade extremely well as what appeals to us also appeals to traders/renters. It just makes sense.  So owning in a so-called "overbuilt" area for the right reason - the only reason to own anywhere really - to USE can make Orlando or Vegas or anywhere else a good deal. Owning to use is the ultimate in being a satisfied timesharer.  Owning to trade is a virtual lock to be at best a disillusioned owner and maybe worse.


----------



## "Roger"

*Orlando*

[Might as well have some fun ...]

One thing that we are constantly be told is that in the "rigged system" Orlando resorts are overpointed, but in the secret system things are different.  (If it is secret, why are people so sure of this?)

Two preliminaries:


I am not going to argue that Orlando timeshares are hard to get, especially if one does enough advanced planning.
As far as being "overpointed" if they truly were RCI would be stuck with a lot of unsold inventory.  Post #233 speaks to this issue.
So do we have any evidence as to what kind of trading power people who own at Orlando get?  The best we can do at this point (outside of taking it as a leap of faith that they must have crummy trading power because the secret system is always correct) is to look at the TUG trade tests (available via a sticky on the TUG sightings board).

The most recent test is admittedly dated - 2004.  But even then, Orlando was TUGGERs favorite whipping boy for an overbuilt area that is easy to trade into.  (Heck, they were always cited as massively "overbuilt" when I joined TUG in '96)  Unfortunately, the 2004 RCI trade test was small and did not include an Orlando resort.  (The II test included a Vistana and it did well.  Actually, there was little difference in any of the resorts that were matched up. No penalty for owning Orlando in II at the time.)

So, on to the 2003 test.  Generalizing (and people can look at the test themselves - feel free) the Orlando resorts ended up in the middle of the pack, one step down from a grouping (with small differences among them) that was decidedly higher.  (Put differently, the Orlando resorts ended up in the second  and what would be best described as a middle tier.)  

One shocker from this test (I remember when it was published) was that the Orlando resorts did better than one of the two Shearwater resorts used in the test.  One Shearwater unit was at the lower end (marginal differences) of the top tier which is what people expected; the other was in the third tier.  There is an easy explanation for this: it was a Dec.1 week.  Still, even an October Orange Lake (also low season) out performed it.

All this pretty much lines up with how Orlando does in the Points system.  Not at the top tier.  (Summer England is definitely there.)  I wouldn't even put them in the second tier, but in the third - middle of the road.

So, for the Orlando bashers, where should Orlando resorts rank in terms of trading power?  Do you have any firm evidence that what you claim to be the true and right and everything honest ranking is the actual tradepower that Orlando units get in the secret system? 

[Fun is over... back to work.]


----------



## miamidan

*thoughts from a newbie*

lots of interesting thoughts going on here.  I think the conversation has veered from the original thoughts but, as a newbie to the board the idea of knowing what an exchange company values your ownership at seems pretty cool.  Seems it allows you to make a more educated decision on whether that or any company is providing you what you think is fair market value.  If you like the valuation you will probably exchange it with that company if you don't you will probably use it within your resort or take it to another exchange company.

Am I oversimplifying something here?


----------



## timeos2

*Openness brings knowledge & fairness*



miamidan said:


> lots of interesting thoughts going on here.  I think the conversation has veered from the original thoughts but, as a newbie to the board the idea of knowing what an exchange company values your ownership at seems pretty cool.  Seems it allows you to make a more educated decision on whether that or any company is providing you what you think is fair market value.  If you like the valuation you will probably exchange it with that company if you don't you will probably use it within your resort or take it to another exchange company.
> 
> Am I oversimplifying something here?



Nope. Once the values are revealed as they should be if you feel it is out of whack then don't use it! Far better than being lulled into thinking your time has value when the exchange company knows they are giving it squat value but hiding that from you at every turn. THAT is rigging the game & pandering to developers not the open disclosure of the values used.


----------



## Carolinian

In addition to the widespread experience of Tuggers that anything out there will trade into Orlando much of the year, there are the reports from inside RCI from TUG's own RCI inside source, Bootleg, who also confirmed the common knowledge of Tuggers on this subject.  Bootleg always told us the places one could almost always trade into easily with essentially any deposit - Massanutten, Orlando, Williamsburg, and Branson.  He also told us that the resort with the biggest oversupply of any resort in the RCI system was Vacation Village at Parkway, an Orlando resort.

You are only looking at trades out, not trades in, but if the fragmentary information you rely on is any indication, it would appear that RCI is using different trading powers in as opposed to out at Orlando.





"Roger" said:


> [Might as well have some fun ...]
> 
> One thing that we are constantly be told is that in the "rigged system" Orlando resorts are overpointed, but in the secret system things are different.  (If it is secret, why are people so sure of this?)
> 
> Two preliminaries:
> 
> 
> I am not going to argue that Orlando timeshares are hard to get, especially if one does enough advanced planning.
> As far as being "overpointed" if they truly were RCI would be stuck with a lot of unsold inventory.  Post #233 speaks to this issue.
> So do we have any evidence as to what kind of trading power people who own at Orlando get?  The best we can do at this point (outside of taking it as a leap of faith that they must have crummy trading power because the secret system is always correct) is to look at the TUG trade tests (available via a sticky on the TUG sightings board).
> 
> The most recent test is admittedly dated - 2004.  But even then, Orlando was TUGGERs favorite whipping boy for an overbuilt area that is easy to trade into.  (Heck, they were always cited as massively "overbuilt" when I joined TUG in '96)  Unfortunately, the 2004 RCI trade test was small and did not include an Orlando resort.  (The II test included a Vistana and it did well.  Actually, there was little difference in any of the resorts that were matched up. No penalty for owning Orlando in II at the time.)
> 
> So, on to the 2003 test.  Generalizing (and people can look at the test themselves - feel free) the Orlando resorts ended up in the middle of the pack, one step down from a grouping (with small differences among them) that was decidedly higher.  (Put differently, the Orlando resorts ended up in the second  and what would be best described as a middle tier.)
> 
> One shocker from this test (I remember when it was published) was that the Orlando resorts did better than one of the two Shearwater resorts used in the test.  One Shearwater unit was at the lower end (marginal differences) of the top tier which is what people expected; the other was in the third tier.  There is an easy explanation for this: it was a Dec.1 week.  Still, even an October Orange Lake (also low season) out performed it.
> 
> All this pretty much lines up with how Orlando does in the Points system.  Not at the top tier.  (Summer England is definitely there.)  I wouldn't even put them in the second tier, but in the third - middle of the road.
> 
> So, for the Orlando bashers, where should Orlando resorts rank in terms of trading power?  Do you have any firm evidence that what you claim to be the true and right and everything honest ranking is the actual tradepower that Orlando units get in the secret system?
> 
> [Fun is over... back to work.]


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> ...You are only looking at trades out, not trades in, but if the fragmentary information you rely on is any indication, it would appear that RCI is using different trading powers in as opposed to out at Orlando.


Absolutely I am looking at trades out.  I fully admitted that it is not that hard to trade in.  I don't doubt you or Cindy at all on that point.

The question I am trying to address is what kind of trading power Orlando owners currently have (trading out).  Yes, the evidence is scant, but it appears that their current trading power is decent.  

******

Just an oddball story from years back.  I am not trying to win any debating points here.

I fully agree with a comment that you made in an earlier post that, in the new system, if timeshares in southern England aren't given far more value than Orlando, something is very wrong.  (You could extend that comment to all of England for summer months.)  In the current Points system, those resorts are at the top of the food chain.  Still your comment brought to mind the following story ....

Years back, when I was still in Weeks, I wanted to go to England.  (Still do.  Favorite place.)  One of the independents was being tauted as having an alliance with an independent timeshare trading company in England.  Also, it was suppose to deal with quality resorts.  (Not hard to guess which company at this point.)  Since I was hearing what a tough trade England was with RCI, I decided to deposit my week with the independent. Once I did that, I waited months and months.  (I did screw up initially by starting with a fairly narrow search, but as I got more desperate, I said I would go anywhere they could find.)  Finally, after lots of calls asking if there was anything, or, what I could change to give me a better chance, the guide told me that there was a timeshare in Exmouth that they often send people, she might be able to get me in  there.  (Hello! I have been asking for anything for about two months now.)

The location and the grounds for this place were nice, but amenities?  Second worst timeshare that I ever stayed in.  View?  Of an interior alley where they stored their dumpsters.  One thing my wife and I especially wondered about was the strange shape of the bathroom.  It was long and very, very narrow.

About the second day, I noticed that the door just beyond our entryway door was marked as a fire exit.  I went down and looked at it.  It was a door to our bathroom!  Our bathroom was the public hallway leading to the fire escape. (No joke.)

In any case, another family of Americans spotted us and asked if we were as disappointed with the place as they were.  They were on their third week (and third timeshare) in England.  The other two places they had stayed were wonderful.  In fact, they named two places that they had been would have been near the top of the places where I would have liked to have stayed.  Curious, I asked what they traded to get these places.  Orlando. I was so used to hearing TUGGERs talk about overbuilt Orlando, I was shocked.  (Orlando had the same reputation on TUG then as now - terribly overbuilt.)  I guess the lesson is don't underestimate the trading power of Orlando.  It always did decently in all the trade tests.


----------



## timeos2

*Don't buy only to trade. Not even resale.*



rickandcindy23 said:


> I don't believe in buying where I want to go.  I love the idea of points and exchanging with my weeks, getting bonus weeks for my deposits from II.
> 
> RCI Points for Deposit gets my weeks after I try searching with them for a while.  Crappy, terrible availability in Hawaii and elsewhere with my weeks, but Orlando, not difficult at all, even with my BLUE week.



And look what happened in one afternoon. What had been a winning strategy of trading was undone when RCI decided to revalue the deposits. You cannot depend on trades to be there. You can know& depend on what you own especially if you choose it to fit the way you plan to use your time. II may reevaluate one day too & suddenly they too will have "gone bad". It is a risky way to operate.  

Otherwise rent. Then you have no chance of rising fees you HAVE to pay. No chance of not getting the trade you want as you pick what you want. Far safer and in the long run cheaper than owning weeks to trade. If you don't want to own to use then the best advice is don't own. Or buy a system that means use at many resorts by design. Still a  buy to use approach. 

I have said RCI weeks was a dead system for over 5 years. I stopped using it & went to RCI Points or other points based systems.  You came to the same conclusion after RCI Weeks suddenly changed valuations. A bit late. I like RCI Points, but I don't depend on them as my key to timeshare ownership. It is just an option to use when I desire it & I don't want to rent.  

Now you feel II offers value but I spent a decade trying to make it work year in & year out in direct competition with RCI as all but one of our resorts are in both.  RCI won every time. II never got us a great trade and  barely got acceptable trades in all that time. Not for lack of trying - lack of delivery by II. 

In general the best advice is do not  buy weeks if your main use will be trade. It is not meant to do that and the convoluted efforts to make it work is what creates so many disappointed timeshare owners.


----------



## miamidan

*i follow a post because of the start title*

I think this post started out because RCI was going to provide the value of inventory both inbound and outbound.

It seems there has been a lot of that is unrelated to the actual subject of knowing your value.

I understadn the apprehension of knowing the value but, don' understand the massive diversions.  The way I understand it currently we have a trading power.   Currently we don't know the trading power of what we own or exchange.  In the future we will know the value of both.

Again dont mean to oversimplify but, at the end of the day this seems positive.  Sure we may love their valuations we might not but, we will make an educated decision.  What am I missing?


----------



## timeos2

*It is a simple concept*



miamidan said:


> I think this post started out because RCI was going to provide the value of inventory both inbound and outbound.
> 
> It seems there has been a lot of that is unrelated to the actual subject of knowing your value.
> 
> I understadn the apprehension of knowing the value but, don' understand the massive diversions.  The way I understand it currently we have a trading power.   Currently we don't know the trading power of what we own or exchange.  In the future we will know the value of both.
> 
> Again dont mean to oversimplify but, at the end of the day this seems positive.  Sure we may love their valuations we might not but, we will make an educated decision.  What am I missing?



Nothing. The idea is that for the first time ever RCI is going to reveal the value given to a week. Having that information is a plus, it is a big change and one that is long overdue. The veil of secret values will be lifted and that can only be good. That some people don't like what they see doesn't change the fact that knowledge is power. The value is assigned if you like it or not and if you know it or not. Better to know it and base decisions on fact rather than guesses. 

Some think that areas or developers get favoritism from RCI ( or II or whoever is doing the value assignments)  but when you think that through it is an unsustainable thing to do. Unless you value things within reason there is too much demand or too little for the supply. Either way the exchange company loses (if it sits they don't make money - if it flies out too quickly for too little they are stuck with overvalued time they can't assign - they lose money) so they need to set values at a level likely to create adequate demand balanced to supply. That is the art of valuation. After decades you have to assume RCI is pretty good at identifying it. Far better than us owners who really only think OUR ownerships are the best value (of course!). 

It will be interesting to see how close all the guesses of the past are to what values are.  Again, knowledge of those values is power to the owners to make better decisions.


----------



## Carolinian

That is not the big change.  The big change is going from the concept of trading within a range to an exact number system, and going from a dynamic system of values that adjusts to ever changing supply and demand factors to a static and rigid system that is inflexible and does not adjust to such changes.  Exact number systems are so rigid and inflexible that they do not even adjust to properly assign the holiday bump to the correct week for holidays such as Thanksgiving and Easter.  Looking only at the one aspect of ''knowing your value'' is tunnel vision that ignores the many ways that an exact number system impacts exchanging.





miamidan said:


> I think this post started out because RCI was going to provide the value of inventory both inbound and outbound.
> 
> It seems there has been a lot of that is unrelated to the actual subject of knowing your value.
> 
> I understadn the apprehension of knowing the value but, don' understand the massive diversions.  The way I understand it currently we have a trading power.   Currently we don't know the trading power of what we own or exchange.  In the future we will know the value of both.
> 
> Again dont mean to oversimplify but, at the end of the day this seems positive.  Sure we may love their valuations we might not but, we will make an educated decision.  What am I missing?


----------



## Carolinian

But RCI apparently is refusing to lift the veil of thier secret process to set these numbers.  The result is that they have set up both the incentive (published values) and mechanism (secret system of setting the numbers) to cheat and cook the books.  This is the worst possible combination for those who want an honest and fair exchange mechanism.

Those who own in overbuilt areas seem to dominate in the group who are cheerleading this change.  They must expect RCI to overvalue their areas compared to the real values set by supply and demand.




timeos2 said:


> Nothing. The idea is that for the first time ever RCI is going to reveal the value given to a week. Having that information is a plus, it is a big change and one that is long overdue. The veil of secret values will be lifted and that can only be good. That some people don't like what they see doesn't change the fact that knowledge is power. The value is assigned if you like it or not and if you know it or not. Better to know it and base decisions on fact rather than guesses.
> 
> Some think that areas or developers get favoritism from RCI ( or II or whoever is doing the value assignments)  but when you think that through it is an unsustainable thing to do. Unless you value things within reason there is too much demand or too little for the supply. Either way the exchange company loses (if it sits they don't make money - if it flies out too quickly for too little they are stuck with overvalued time they can't assign - they lose money) so they need to set values at a level likely to create adequate demand balanced to supply. That is the art of valuation. After decades you have to assume RCI is pretty good at identifying it. Far better than us owners who really only think OUR ownerships are the best value (of course!).
> 
> It will be interesting to see how close all the guesses of the past are to what values are.  Again, knowledge of those values is power to the owners to make better decisions.


----------



## miamidan

Carolinian,

You seem to have more information than the rest of us can you please point us to the source of this?  I have searched the site and can't find reference to what you are saying except in the text of your posts.  Sorry if I am being a pest!


----------



## Dave599

Carolinian said:


> That is not the big change.  The big change is going from the concept of trading within a range to an exact number system, and going from a dynamic system of values that adjusts to ever changing supply and demand factors to a static and rigid system that is inflexible and does not adjust to such changes.  Exact number systems are so rigid and inflexible that they do not even adjust to properly assign the holiday bump to the correct week for holidays such as Thanksgiving and Easter.  Looking only at the one aspect of ''knowing your value'' is tunnel vision that ignores the many ways that an exact number system impacts exchanging.



This is not exactly correct, trading value has never been dynamic within a deposit even now when you deposit a week it is assigned a trading value based on supply/demand and did you deposit more then 9 months in advance, it will keep that trading value until the week expires no matter what (except for 1 exception) So if you deposit today for a week in October and you are assigned a value of X, if 3 months from now something happens that would have altered your value either up or down it won't make any difference to that deposit, if it becomes a recurring event it might change the trading value for the next deposit for the next year. To put it another way, if 6 months after you deposit your week you find out there is going to be a bike week in that town although the "value" of your week should change by 10 fold or more it won't affect your trading value for that deposit, if they decide to have the bike week that date every year it will change it for the next years deposit. It doesn't change now and it won't change in the new system... The exception is if you book something and then cancel it your trading value is recalculated to a value as if you deposited on that day so it goes down.......

Dave


----------



## Carolinian

Of course there has to be a valuation date on deposits and it makes sense that it is the date of deposit.  The valuations of what is in the system to exchange for move with supply and demand, as they should.

The system does also adjust for changes in holiday dates.  Ask anyone who has owned week 46 or 47.  The weeks system is dynamic and flexible enough to give the holiday bump to the correct week of Thanksgiving.  The points system is not.  I am sure that is true for all holidays that move between week numbers.

After Katrina, when nobody wanted to go to New Orleans, the Weeks system was flexible enough to adjust trading powers, but I don't think Points ever adjusted the numbers.  Deposits were overvalued and exchanges overpriced due to the rigidity and lack of flexibility of points' exchange mechanism.





Dave599 said:


> This is not exactly correct, trading value has never been dynamic within a deposit even now when you deposit a week it is assigned a trading value based on supply/demand and did you deposit more then 9 months in advance, it will keep that trading value until the week expires no matter what (except for 1 exception) So if you deposit today for a week in October and you are assigned a value of X, if 3 months from now something happens that would have altered your value either up or down it won't make any difference to that deposit, if it becomes a recurring event it might change the trading value for the next deposit for the next year. To put it another way, if 6 months after you deposit your week you find out there is going to be a bike week in that town although the "value" of your week should change by 10 fold or more it won't affect your trading value for that deposit, if they decide to have the bike week that date every year it will change it for the next years deposit. It doesn't change now and it won't change in the new system... The exception is if you book something and then cancel it your trading value is recalculated to a value as if you deposited on that day so it goes down.......
> 
> Dave


----------



## miamidan

I thought that the weeks system was exposing the values.  One would assume that the values would be dynamic as they have been in the past right or did I miss something that said they would not be?


----------



## Dave599

Carolinian said:


> Of course there has to be a valuation date on deposits and it makes sense that it is the date of deposit.  The valuations of what is in the system to exchange for move with supply and demand, as they should.
> 
> The system does also adjust for changes in holiday dates.  Ask anyone who has owned week 46 or 47.  The weeks system is dynamic and flexible enough to give the holiday bump to the correct week of Thanksgiving.  The points system is not.  I am sure that is true for all holidays that move between week numbers.
> 
> After Katrina, when nobody wanted to go to New Orleans, the Weeks system was flexible enough to adjust trading powers, but I don't think Points ever adjusted the numbers.  Deposits were overvalued and exchanges overpriced due to the rigidity and lack of flexibility of points' exchange mechanism.



It may just be semantics here I am not sure, the word dynamic does not apply to a weeks deposit after it has been deposited. It is assigned a trading value at time of deposit, that may be different from year to year, from deposit to deposit due to holiday dates or other factors but it does not change for that week once deposited. It is not dynamic, ever changing over the life of the deposit regardless of events or supply and demand. If that was the case if you deposited a week and its assigned a trading value of X and a month later the resort burned down your trading value should go to zero is doesn't it stays the same, what RCI would do the next year for the next deposit I don't know......I can't speak to points values I don't know enough about them....... 

Dave


----------



## bnoble

Dave, usually the trade power of a deposited week does not change.  But, the 5/30/09 revaluation did that---perhaps not by changing the "number" assigned to deposits, but by changing the "reach" that each deposit had.   The effect is the same.


----------



## Dave599

miamidan said:


> I thought that the weeks system was exposing the values.  One would assume that the values would be dynamic as they have been in the past right or did I miss something that said they would not be?



This is correct in that rci will be showing a trading value for deposits, the value was always there we just could not see it before, It has never been nor will it be "dynamic" after the deposit is made. You will not see your trading value change on a deposited week from week to week or month to month. Whatever you get at the time of deposit will be what you have until the deposit expires, regardless of supply and demand or other events it has always been that way nothing is changing except we will be able to see the "value" expressed as a numeric value. 

Dave


----------



## Carolinian

The values system remains dynamic in the present weeks system, but in any system a value has to be set at some point.  That is not rocket science.  It is just common sense.  The value is set on a week taken out as an exchange at the time that transaction is made and a week deposited is similarly valued at the time that transaction is made, when the week is deposited.  Maybe someone could argue that the point of valuation should be different, but there simply has to be one in both directions.

In contrast, a points system is sort of like rent control.  You set a value at one point in time and then freeze it for years.  How many RCI Points values have been adjusted since the system started?  Even if they had been set fairly and accurately in the beginning, which they were not, then they would get out of whack after a while.  Such a system can never be accurate or fair.





Dave599 said:


> It may just be semantics here I am not sure, the word dynamic does not apply to a weeks deposit after it has been deposited. It is assigned a trading value at time of deposit, that may be different from year to year, from deposit to deposit due to holiday dates or other factors but it does not change for that week once deposited. It is not dynamic, ever changing over the life of the deposit regardless of events or supply and demand. If that was the case if you deposited a week and its assigned a trading value of X and a month later the resort burned down your trading value should go to zero is doesn't it stays the same, what RCI would do the next year for the next deposit I don't know......I can't speak to points values I don't know enough about them.......
> 
> Dave


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> That is not the big change.  The big change is going from the concept of trading within a range to an exact number system, and going from a dynamic system of values that adjusts to ever changing supply and demand factors to a static and rigid system that is inflexible and does not adjust to such changes.  Exact number systems are so rigid and inflexible that they do not even adjust to properly assign the holiday bump to the correct week for holidays such as Thanksgiving and Easter.  Looking only at the one aspect of ''knowing your value'' is tunnel vision that ignores the many ways that an exact number system impacts exchanging.


Who says?  From what I have been told (from a couple of insiders who have been working on this new program for an extended time, but obviiously not the same insiders you trust), the system will retain the dynamic system we use now, but the numbers will in essense be made available.  This system is not "points" as we know it, and will not be rigid.


Carolinian said:


> But RCI apparently is refusing to lift the veil of thier secret process to set these numbers.  The result is that they have set up both the incentive (published values) and mechanism (secret system of setting the numbers) to cheat and cook the books.  This is the worst possible combination for those who want an honest and fair exchange mechanism.
> 
> Those who own in overbuilt areas seem to dominate in the group who are cheerleading this change.  They must expect RCI to overvalue their areas compared to the real values set by supply and demand.


Again, from what I understand, the "published" numbers will be the value of your week on the date you wish to deposit it (it will fluctuation based on supply/demand), and the value of the exchange you want on the date you request it (again, it will fluctuate as it does in the current system).

As for those of us who own in "oversupply" areas, I don't think any of use expects RCI to give our resorts a boost.  If anything, it will allow people to see the difference among the various resorts in those areas.  I know my Orlando week has decent value already, and I expect it to remain the same.  I also know my two beach weeks have better trade power, and would expect that to remain the same too.  Depending on how you define overbuilt, 90% of the resort areas could be considered overbuilt.  In a largely developed area like Orlando, if supply exceeds demand by 10%, that's a significant number of units, and we don't know what percentage of units sit empty during "slow time" in Orlando.  But if we look at some of the highly seasonal areas, the supply exceeds demand by as much as 50-60%.  Still, there are not as many empty units as Orlando, because there aren't that many units to begin with.


Carolinian said:


> Of course there has to be a valuation date on deposits and it makes sense that it is the date of deposit.  The valuations of what is in the system to exchange for move with supply and demand, as they should.
> 
> The system does also adjust for changes in holiday dates.  Ask anyone who has owned week 46 or 47.  The weeks system is dynamic and flexible enough to give the holiday bump to the correct week of Thanksgiving.  The points system is not.  I am sure that is true for all holidays that move between week numbers.
> 
> After Katrina, when nobody wanted to go to New Orleans, the Weeks system was flexible enough to adjust trading powers, but I don't think Points ever adjusted the numbers.  Deposits were overvalued and exchanges overpriced due to the rigidity and lack of flexibility of points' exchange mechanism.


And you are assuming that this new system will be based on the "RCI Points" values.  But we have been told otherwise - they will be based on the current trade values, just with a numerical value assigned.  


Carolinian said:


> The values system remains dynamic in the present weeks system, but in any system a value has to be set at some point.  That is not rocket science.  It is just common sense.  The value is set on a week taken out as an exchange at the time that transaction is made and a week deposited is similarly valued at the time that transaction is made, when the week is deposited.  Maybe someone could argue that the point of valuation should be different, but there simply has to be one in both directions.


This is exactly what the rest of us have been trying to say!  Aside from the specific value assigned to certain weeks, you like the "old" system.  Why will that system be worse when they actually tell you the values?  If anything, it will give a sense of wjat weeks are considered equivalent, vs what is a small trade down, or a large trade down.  How is that bad?


> In contrast, a points system is sort of like rent control.  You set a value at one point in time and then freeze it for years.  How many RCI Points values have been adjusted since the system started?  Even if they had been set fairly and accurately in the beginning, which they were not, then they would get out of whack after a while.  Such a system can never be accurate or fair.


 The only values that will be "frozen" will be the value assigned to your week on deposit.  How is that not fair?  It might be nice to have those values dynamic as well, but it would be a nightmare to use, and you risk losing trade power when a bulk banking is done after your own deposit.


----------



## Carolinian

While I do have one source close to RCI who vaguely says it will still be dynamic, a couple of others who have connections at resorts which have been briefed on the new system and have seen the numbers charts for their own resorts and they do not appear to be dynamic.  They look like points charts, except they have more bands than the points charts (at least that is a small step in the right direction with less overaveraging than points).  Nothing on those charts point to their being dynamic, although one source said someone from RCI said they may be reviewed at intervals, perhaps annually (that would be a step up from RCI Points but still a big step backward from the current system).

The big red flag on who seems likely to take in on the chin in this numbers racket is the selective way RCI is briefing some resorts in a fair amount of detail but saying nothing at all to others that a change is even coming.  Those RCI seems to be ignoring are the smaller, owner-controlled sold out resorts, and that is a consistent pattern on both sides of the Atlantic.




Mel said:


> Who says?  From what I have been told (from a couple of insiders who have been working on this new program for an extended time, but obviiously not the same insiders you trust), the system will retain the dynamic system we use now, but the numbers will in essense be made available.  This system is not "points" as we know it, and will not be rigid.
> 
> Again, from what I understand, the "published" numbers will be the value of your week on the date you wish to deposit it (it will fluctuation based on supply/demand), and the value of the exchange you want on the date you request it (again, it will fluctuate as it does in the current system).
> 
> As for those of us who own in "oversupply" areas, I don't think any of use expects RCI to give our resorts a boost.  If anything, it will allow people to see the difference among the various resorts in those areas.  I know my Orlando week has decent value already, and I expect it to remain the same.  I also know my two beach weeks have better trade power, and would expect that to remain the same too.  Depending on how you define overbuilt, 90% of the resort areas could be considered overbuilt.  In a largely developed area like Orlando, if supply exceeds demand by 10%, that's a significant number of units, and we don't know what percentage of units sit empty during "slow time" in Orlando.  But if we look at some of the highly seasonal areas, the supply exceeds demand by as much as 50-60%.  Still, there are not as many empty units as Orlando, because there aren't that many units to begin with.
> And you are assuming that this new system will be based on the "RCI Points" values.  But we have been told otherwise - they will be based on the current trade values, just with a numerical value assigned.
> This is exactly what the rest of us have been trying to say!  Aside from the specific value assigned to certain weeks, you like the "old" system.  Why will that system be worse when they actually tell you the values?  If anything, it will give a sense of wjat weeks are considered equivalent, vs what is a small trade down, or a large trade down.  How is that bad?
> The only values that will be "frozen" will be the value assigned to your week on deposit.  How is that not fair?  It might be nice to have those values dynamic as well, but it would be a nightmare to use, and you risk losing trade power when a bulk banking is done after your own deposit.


----------



## timeos2

Carolinian said:


> That is not the big change.  The big change is going from the concept of trading within a range to an exact number system, and going from a dynamic system of values that adjusts to ever changing supply and demand factors to a static and rigid system that is inflexible and does not adjust to such changes.  Exact number systems are so rigid and inflexible that they do not even adjust to properly assign the holiday bump to the correct week for holidays such as Thanksgiving and Easter.  Looking only at the one aspect of ''knowing your value'' is tunnel vision that ignores the many ways that an exact number system impacts exchanging.



It's always been there. That is not a change. Now we get to see it.


----------



## rickandcindy23

timeos2 said:


> It's always been there. That is not a change. Now we get to see it.



So how does that explain the timing of a deposit?  If it's always been there, why is it that the same week deposited 18 months out would have low trading power compared to the same prime week (same use year) deposited six months out?  I have identical weeks for one of my resorts and have tested it.  

I see big changes coming, and maybe there will be more people complaining about drops in trading power besides me.


----------



## timeos2

*RCI Rentals are a major problem. Carolinian has that right*



rickandcindy23 said:


> So how does that explain the timing of a deposit?  If it's always been there, why is it that the same week deposited 18 months out would have low trading power compared to the same prime week (same use year) deposited six months out?  I have identical weeks for one of my resorts and have tested it.
> 
> I see big changes coming, and maybe there will be more people complaining about drops in trading power besides me.



Part of what they (RCI) talked about at both presentations I got to see (which by the way were at smaller, sold out, owner controlled resorts which an earlier post said are being "excluded" from getting information - again, not so) is the idea that early deposit (or late) has an impact on the trade value. It does they admit BUT nothing as great as we have been primed to believe here through the years. In fact there are only 2 or 3 different levels and they occur in relatively small time frames. The 2 year out for best value is one that turns out to have no basis in fact. 

RCI appears to heading to a tighter like for like trade which will be facilitated by the ability to get change back or use more than one week to obtain credits needed that weren't available prior to the disclosure of values as they plan. I agree 110% plenty of people will be complaining as any change that disturbs what worked for them is a negative. And this will at the least expose things they either didn't know or didn't want to admit to themselves (as in a highly seasonal week in a slow season simply does not have any intrinsic value).  Or that areas they think don't have value - or they think have great value - don't match up when they see the numbers RCI uses. It's a given. 

Something as to be done as even rentals at prices that are killing resorts and owners aren't an easy sell anymore. RCI (& II, whoever) needs to have in place a system that makes trades more likely and the need to rent less. Hopefully the open credit system will be a kick to get things going back toward trade rather than rental.


----------



## "Roger"

rickandcindy23 said:


> So how does that explain the timing of a deposit?  If it's always been there, why is it that the same week deposited 18 months out would have low trading power compared to the same prime week (same use year) deposited six months out?  I have identical weeks for one of my resorts and have tested it. ...


Cindiy,

If I understand your question correctly (it seemed clear to me, but John's post didn't seem to address it), you are asking how one and the same unit can have vastly different trading power depending upon the timing of the deposit.  It all has to do with Carolinian's "dynamic" supply and demand.

Suppose you and I have identical units at a Colorado resort.  You deposit on a Monday.  There happens to be very few of those units available at the time.  As a result of low supply, you are given 90 units of trading power.  

On Tuesday, at work, you tell me about all the great sightings that you are seeing and I get really excited about depositing my identical unit, but I can't do it until tomorrow.  Unfortunately our resort decides to bulk spacebank that day (Tuesday), so when Wednesday comes RCI has a great (over) supply of units at this resort.  As a result of the "dynamic" supply and demand, come 
Wednesday, RCI only gives me 40 units of trading power.

Does this actually happen?  Yes.  It can happen in other ways.  Suppose you (sorry, you will be the loser in the hypothetical example this  time, my apologies) decide to deposit 18 months out.  There is not much demand for our Colorado resort that far out.  (There is a momentary blip, two years out when people can first request.)  Given low demand, you are given 40 units of trading power.  I deposit one year out when people are thinking seriously about next year and am given 90 units of trading power for the same resort.  (If this sounds similar to the HHI discussion of recent, you can look and see that this is what I suggested might have happened.  I constantly said I did not think that that case was a bulk spacebank issue.)

One person receiving high trading power and another low for depositing the same unit. Personally, I think that that is a total crock!  I have been saying this for years.  RCI has good knowledge from historical records what level of supply and demand to expect over time.  I have argued for years (you can guess with whom) that people should not be penalized for bad timing of their deposits ESPECIALLY when they are not allowed to see the numbers.


----------



## AFARR

"Roger" said:


> SNip.......
> 
> One person receiving high trading power and another low for depositing the same unit. Personally, I think that that is a total crock!  I have been saying this for years.  RCI has good knowledge from historical records what level of supply and demand to expect over time.  I have argued for years (you can guess with whom) that people should not be penalized for bad timing of their deposits ESPECIALLY when they are not allowed to see the numbers.



Roger,

I have to wonder if there's too much over-reaction to this (myself included, but as a Newbie, I don't have too many expectations).

I can understand both the need for a Dynamic rating (supply/demand) in combination with a Static rating (# of Bedrooms, 'rating' of resort***, regional demand + national demand, season, etc. etc.).

I'm guessing your example is probably exaggerated (in the difference between the deposit values) for clarity...I think it will shake out like this:  You are guaranteed 50 (out of 90 max) trading credits for your unit (it's a beach resort, 2 br, higher regional/lower national demand in the high summer season, in a Silver Crown*** resort).   You deposit it at ANY time and you get the 50 credits minimum (even in the middle of a large spacebank deposit).   However, you can get extra trade credits based on fluctuating demand (few similar weeks in the system, encompassing a major holiday or sporting event in the area, etc. etc.)...up to 50% of your base (so you could get up to 75 trade credits max if you play your cards right).

***yes, I know the ratings are often exaggerated.   However, a place with 2 indoor pools, multiple hot tubs, etc, etc. should get higher rated than the converted motel next door.


Under a combination system, you KNOW the minimum trade power for your week, and can still play with the time for deposit, etc....and take advantage of good luck to increase the total credits you get....say Prince William decides to get married in Duck, NC the last week in September.   Wouldn't my Wk 39, 3Br. Lockoff be a massively Saber-Toothed trader for JUST that week?   (Actually to hell with that....that week would be for rent for the bargain price of 100X my MFs!!)

Then someone with a Wk 26 3 Br. Lockoff there will always get a better base level of trade credits in the same place....but because of a singular increase in demand, I'll come close or exceed them with my Pink week.   


AFARR


----------



## AwayWeGo

*2 Side By Side Points Systems -- Both RCI.  Who'd A-Thunk ?*




AFARR said:


> I can understand both the need for a Dynamic rating (supply/demand) in combination with a Static rating (# of Bedrooms, 'rating' of resort***, regional demand + national demand, season, etc. etc.).


Points are points & apparently now Weeks Credits are _Super Points_. 

Letting people glom together Weeks Credits from more than 1 humble timeshare in order to exchange into a single fancypants timeshare sure seems like a points-based exchange, even if they don't call it that. 

Ditto getting "change back" in the form of leftover Weeks Credits when using a  fancypants prime-season timeshare as trade bait for exchanging into a humbler offseason timeshare unit. 

Once the new RCI Weeks Credits system is up & running alongside the old familiar RCI Points system, then we can start fretting about Points members _raiding the Weeks Credits inventory_. 

In any case, RCI Points & _RCI Super Points_ running side by side will be a far cry from straight-weeks running side-by-side with straight-points. 

Where do I sign up ? 

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


----------



## "Roger"

AFARR said:


> ...I'm guessing your example is probably exaggerated (in the difference between the deposit values) for clarity......
> AFARR


Yes and no.  The numerical gap in my example is probably much bigger than anything in the RCI computers.  But at the same time, that gap (the lower trading power in the RCI computers for the person who unwittingly deposits at a bad time) can often mean that the person whose deposit suffered from back luck in timing can no longer access one of the top resorts that she would have liked to have gone to, or, nothing is available in the month of August where the family would like to go (and their kids are in school in September).

McDonalds has no trouble providing static prices.  Their electronic price board does not read like a bunch of stock market quotes going up as it nears noon (high demand) but going lower toward three o'clock.  Walmart doesn't lower its prices every time a delivery truck comes in (too much supply). I get many a mail order catelogue with printed prices. So RCI offers owners of Points units a guaranteed price for their unit and someone on this board labels this practice communistic. Huh??

Finally, one thing that is particularly irksome about the fluxuating trading power that the "dynamic" system offers is that RCI encourages people to deposit early - that if they do so, they will be given higher trading power.  There have been numerous cases reported on these boards where someone deposited too early and ended up with low trading power.  A former poster on this board (JLB) talked to someone at RCI about this and that person acknowledged that if someone were to deposit too early the boost that RCI gives for an early is outweighed by the loss of trading power due to low demand at the time of deposit.  (In other words, this insider confirmed what TUGGERs had observed from actual experience.)


----------



## Carolinian

RCI is trying to make exchanging cumbersome and annoying with the hair splitting of exact numbers.  In doing so, they will undoubtedly make changes that divert more inventory to rentals as they did in the last big change.  They will likely offer to sell you credits if you do not have enough, increasing exchange costs to members.

I have never whined about what on paper would be a trade down, like when I traded a 2BR summer beach week for a blue studio in Europe.  The latter happened to be at a time that worked extremely well for my schedule and at a resort that did not show up that often any time of the year and when I checked in, at least they gave me a 1BR rather than the studio confirmed.  It was where I wanted to go, so I was happy to get it.  As an exchanger, the aggravating hair splitting of an exact number system is much more of a negative on exchanging than the occaisional trade down.  And RCI having its hand out for extra money for needed credits will just be adding insult to injury.  From my experience trades up were just marginal, and it all came out in the wash at the end of the day as there were also times of taking trades down.  RCI will not even be getting the one week I had been leaving in their system anymore.

I suspect that your resorts were on the favored list of RCI because of 1) having a big time management company or 2) being in an area that was slated for favorable treatment under the new regime.  From your other posts, I know that 1 is true of at least one of those two resorts, maybe both of them.

My biggest concern, however, as a former HOA president, is how this is going to adversely impact HOA's.  This will roll out in November just before m/f bills come out.  Many members who are already unhappy with RCI are not going to like it worth a flip, it might be just the thing to trigger a lot of bailouts.  If RCI had any concern at all about its affiliates, it would at least wat until February when most m/f's were in before dropping this bombshell on people.





timeos2 said:


> Part of what they (RCI) talked about at both presentations I got to see (which by the way were at smaller, sold out, owner controlled resorts which an earlier post said are being "excluded" from getting information - again, not so) is the idea that early deposit (or late) has an impact on the trade value. It does they admit BUT nothing as great as we have been primed to believe here through the years. In fact there are only 2 or 3 different levels and they occur in relatively small time frames. The 2 year out for best value is one that turns out to have no basis in fact.
> 
> RCI appears to heading to a tighter like for like trade which will be facilitated by the ability to get change back or use more than one week to obtain credits needed that weren't available prior to the disclosure of values as they plan. I agree 110% plenty of people will be complaining as any change that disturbs what worked for them is a negative. And this will at the least expose things they either didn't know or didn't want to admit to themselves (as in a highly seasonal week in a slow season simply does not have any intrinsic value).  Or that areas they think don't have value - or they think have great value - don't match up when they see the numbers RCI uses. It's a given.
> 
> Something as to be done as even rentals at prices that are killing resorts and owners aren't an easy sell anymore. RCI (& II, whoever) needs to have in place a system that makes trades more likely and the need to rent less. Hopefully the open credit system will be a kick to get things going back toward trade rather than rental.


----------



## Carolinian

So you go to a rigid and inflexible points system that cannot even manage to assign the value of holiday weeks like Thanksgiving to the proper owner.  One that freezes values for years, ignoring the changes in the market in the mean time.  One that gives extra points for being a GC (a stupid reason in the first place as whatever bounce it got from that is already reflecting in supply / demand and giving it more points for that is unfair double counting) but then the resort falls to Hospitality or standard and it still keeps those extra points.

Give me a dynamic week-for-week system any day!




"Roger" said:


> Yes and no.  The numerical gap in my example is probably much bigger than anything in the RCI computers.  But at the same time, that gap (the lower trading power in the RCI computers for the person who unwittingly deposits at a bad time) can often mean that the person whose deposit suffered from back luck in timing can no longer access one of the top resorts that she would have liked to have gone to, or, nothing is available in the month of August where the family would like to go (and their kids are in school in September).
> 
> McDonalds has no trouble providing static prices.  Their electronic price board does not read like a bunch of stock market quotes going up as it nears noon (high demand) but going lower toward three o'clock.  Walmart doesn't lower its prices every time a delivery truck comes in (too much supply). I get many a mail order catelogue with printed prices. So RCI offers owners of Points units a guaranteed price for their unit and someone on this board labels this practice communistic. Huh??
> 
> Finally, one thing that is particularly irksome about the fluxuating trading power that the "dynamic" system offers is that RCI encourages people to deposit early - that if they do so, they will be given higher trading power.  There have been numerous cases reported on these boards where someone deposited too early and ended up with low trading power.  A former poster on this board (JLB) talked to someone at RCI about this and that person acknowledged that if someone were to deposit too early the boost that RCI gives for an early is outweighed by the loss of trading power due to low demand at the time of deposit.  (In other words, this insider confirmed what TUGGERs had observed from actual experience.)


----------



## Carolinian

McDonald's is valuing its own goods, that it produced, not someone else's goods like a timeshare that owners ''produce'' by paying the m/f and only entrust it to an exchange company for the purpose of exchange.  Huge difference!  

A better analogy would be a bank charging a set rate for years at a time for foreign exchange instead of what the market that day said it was worth.  Oh, wait, the old Soviet system used to do exactly that!  A rouble that they said was worth $1.11 actually sold on the free market in Zurich for between 18 and 20 cents.





"Roger" said:


> Yes and no.  The numerical gap in my example is probably much bigger than anything in the RCI computers.  But at the same time, that gap (the lower trading power in the RCI computers for the person who unwittingly deposits at a bad time) can often mean that the person whose deposit suffered from back luck in timing can no longer access one of the top resorts that she would have liked to have gone to, or, nothing is available in the month of August where the family would like to go (and their kids are in school in September).
> 
> McDonalds has no trouble providing static prices.  Their electronic price board does not read like a bunch of stock market quotes going up as it nears noon (high demand) but going lower toward three o'clock.  Walmart doesn't lower its prices every time a delivery truck comes in (too much supply). I get many a mail order catelogue with printed prices. So RCI offers owners of Points units a guaranteed price for their unit and someone on this board labels this practice communistic. Huh??
> 
> Finally, one thing that is particularly irksome about the fluxuating trading power that the "dynamic" system offers is that RCI encourages people to deposit early - that if they do so, they will be given higher trading power.  There have been numerous cases reported on these boards where someone deposited too early and ended up with low trading power.  A former poster on this board (JLB) talked to someone at RCI about this and that person acknowledged that if someone were to deposit too early the boost that RCI gives for an early is outweighed by the loss of trading power due to low demand at the time of deposit.  (In other words, this insider confirmed what TUGGERs had observed from actual experience.)


----------



## rickandcindy23

It occurred to me last night that this new system will be good for only Hilton owners.  They will give top trading value to Hilton to get to other areas of Hawaii.  They are actually already doing that, allowing Hilton points to trade directly into weeks or RCI Points.  Wyndham charges $$$$ for that privilege, but RCI owners get it, even resale owners.

Hilton is the only high-end chain they have (can you think of others?), besides DVC.  DVC ownership isn't going to be impressed with Hilton inventory, because DVC is building in a better part of Oahu (my opinion), and DVC is already in Orlando, where Hilton has most of their inventory.  What do the poor DVC owners get in RCI but a bunch of junk?  

RCI has a severe shortage of Maui resorts, while II has many resorts, most of which are nicer than anything RCI has.  So Hilton owners are going to exchange into these few resorts, instead of the rest of us. 

High quality Kauai resorts are rare in RCI, not that I care about Gold Crown (and how is Shearwater or Bali Hai ever going to get back Gold Crown without a restaurant, the new requirement for GC in RCI).  Point at Poipu gives exchangers lower level units with no ocean views, and Lawai Beach Resort gives most inventory to HTSE.  Shell uses most of the Beachboy inventory themselves.  So Hilton will get the best resorts on Kauai, but not the best views, unless they settle for Silver Crown and take Shearwater.  :rofl: 

RCI has junk for Wyndham deposits (my opinion, again), and anyone in DVC or Hilton wouldn't be impressed with most of the Wyn resorts, anyway.  Proof of the junk is that we cannot deposit even 154K generic Wyn points and get a studio at DVC, let alone a Hilton Hawaiian week.  Wyndham gives leftovers to RCI, basically, so RCI gives very little value to the product.  Wyndham doesn't care, but they should care for the owners' sake.  Wyndham salespeople promise that RCI is the same company and gives preference to Wyn owners.  A bunch of hooey.  RCI also forces generic deposits to pay the higher exchange fee, because we have NO CHOICE.  I will never accept a generic deposit again!! 

I am trying to think of places where RCI is stronger than II, and I cannot see it.  Maybe the Caymans or Mexico?

I need to sell everything we own and buy Hilton to get my Shearwater and DVC.


----------



## bnoble

That's a good idea...until something changes again.  I know this is a hobby for you, but if you keep buying to trade, you're going to be shooting at a constantly moving target.

Honestly, you should know better by now!


----------



## rickandcindy23

Buying to trade into oceanfront Maui is not a good plan, certainly, but our favorite vacation is Orlando, and we aren't going to buy 5 weeks there to use every year.  That would be nonsensical, considering the inventory there during off-season, not to mention the Last Call and Getaway prices.  

If Marriott leaves II, it will sting a bit, but there are other options for us in exchange (lots and lots).  

We did buy oceanfront Maui and will use RCI points to our advantage for Kauai.  Wyndham has our favorite resort on Kauai, but it's 400K points to start!   I can get the same thing for 82K RCI Points in off-season, 109K in prime season.

We will take what we can get on the islands for our second trip each year.  Those last call RCI Point exchanges are in great abundance in September and October.


----------



## miamidan

*on a trade right now*

From what I have understood (forgive me as I am new) Trading power has been out there for years.  There was a trading power adjustment which many view as a further refinement of trading power.  There are some who are for this and some that are against it (this is healthy).

my weeks available actually increased post 5/30/09.  One is very pro rci but, sells RCI Points whereas I have RCI weeks with them.  The other is an Interval resort where I have RCI weeks with them.

My RCI weeks resort has consistently been able to see and confirm larger units than what I own in high season.  I believe this is because I have chosen prime weeks to be given to me.

I bought my weeks on the old system which was great as I could always trade up..  I do however own a unit far smaller than what my family and I need.  We will probabloy need tup reposition ownershiop in the next year or two.


----------



## Carolinian

Mel said:


> It would be great if resorts could be built in the areas with real demand - Paris, London, Rome... but without a point system, or something similar, the only advantage will be to those who own at those resorts.  They will form their own mini-system and exchange within their own group.  Perhaps with this new system there will be true incentive for those resorts to participate.  The Paris owner has one ownership that allows him to take 3 weeks of vacation elsewhere, or use his one home week.  When he exchanges, other owners give up 2 or 3 of their weeks to take a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Paris.  Is that really that much different than SFX or DAE offering a bonus week for the deposit of that Paris week, and charging an upgrade fee to the person who trades in?



Paris, hmmm?  Well, I don't own in a big European city or any big city.  My timeshares are in the countryside or small towns.

But for Paris, right now, I find I can do a one for one trade for a choice of 46 weeks at 4 resorts through RCI in all seasons of the year.  This includes 19 weeks at Eurodisney on the outskirts of Paris, 7 weeks in Vincennes (Royal Regency), and 20 weeks at 2 resorts within Paris itself.

And before you start the broken record about ''trades up'', I should point out that the resort I am using for this search in southern England (and a summer week)  currently shows absolutely no availibility at all in any season if someone wanted to trade into it.  Given the relative supply / demand situation, I would say that trading it for Paris may indeed be a trade down.

How is it again that having to trade two or three weeks to get Paris is supposed to be a big benefit?????????????

Or, since you mention Rome, lets consider that.  Right now, RCI online shows me 30 possible trades in the Rome Area, but since location matters, I will look just at within Rome itself.  There I have 5 options availible online right now, including 1 2BR, 3 1BR's, and a studio, with 2 of them in April and 3 in November.  Spring and Fall are, incidentally, when I prefer Rome, due to the heat in summer.

I will be carefully watching how weeks like this fare in RCI's new numbers racket.

And, again, DAE charges no upgrade fee.  I am new to SFX but I do not think they do either.  You may be thinking of HTSE, but I think with them it is only on size, not other factors.


----------



## miamidan

I think what the previous poster was trying to say was that there are certain places where some/many/all people can not currently see inventory because their trading power is not high enough.  If you know your value whether it is in points/widgets/cookies and you know that it requires 50 trading cookies to get your dream destination (insert city/resort you can not get) and you can combine your weeks to get there some people might find that helpful.  On the other hand those folks that have been trading prime weeks for those "overbuilt" areas might get change back which might show them value to keep those prime weeks in the system.  Maybe this is oversimplifying but, why should timeshare exchanging be the only system we don't have clarity.  I might not like my values given to my weeks and I have no idea how float will be handled but, I doubt I will be too surprised.


----------



## Carolinian

miamidan said:


> I think what the previous poster was trying to say was that there are certain places where some/many/all people can not currently see inventory because their trading power is not high enough.  If you know your value whether it is in points/widgets/cookies and you know that it requires 50 trading cookies to get your dream destination (insert city/resort you can not get) and you can combine your weeks to get there some people might find that helpful.  On the other hand those folks that have been trading prime weeks for those "overbuilt" areas might get change back which might show them value to keep those prime weeks in the system.  Maybe this is oversimplifying but, why should timeshare exchanging be the only system we don't have clarity.  I might not like my values given to my weeks and I have no idea how float will be handled but, I doubt I will be too surprised.



Sorry, this system change means RCI will not get either of my summer UK weeks any more.  One has already gone to DAE and the other will go to SFX very shortly. While I very much dislike exact number systems (they can keep their ''change back ''- or hanging points - thank you!), the fact that RCI hides how they compute their magic numbers makes the whole system untrustworthy and would preclude me giving it any consideration at all. They have never gotten the summer OBX week I currently own, and they never will (it has been rented for this summer through the local brick and mortar t/s rental/resale agency for over twice the m/f). When I want a lesser week as an exchange, well that is what I bought SA for!  It is better value for those trades than the OBX blue and white weeks I first bought for the lesser trades and then sold when I discovered SA through TUG.

Published results but a hidden process of setting the numbers is the worst of all possible worlds, as it creates both the incentive and the mechanism for cheating.  A purely hidden system eliminates the incentive, while a fully transparent system eliminates the mechanism for cheating.  Half a loaf is worse, in this case, than no loaf.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Maybe the system will make sense, but knowing RCI and using their system for 27 years, probably not.  It probably won't be as transparent as they say, there will probably be 90% of owners who will be unhappy, and I will likely think it's a downgrade of my trading power, because that is the only direction RCI goes--DOWN.  They are the worst in the industry, and I hope everyone realizes it and uses the alternatives.


----------



## Carolinian

*If it is Paris you want . . .*

_Why risk the crapshoot of an exact numbers system. 1 week has been taken since earlier today, but here is what I currently get for the Paris area from RCI Weeks, using a summer UK deposit:   _


Search Results - Exchange 

You Chose: 
  Location  
      Europe 
      --  France 
      ----  Paris Area 

  Search Type  
     Exchange  


Filter By 
 City  
Lognes/Marne la Vallee  [19]  
Paris  [19]  
Vincennes  [7]  

 Check-in Month  
September 2010  [2]  
October 2010  [5]  
November 2010  [7]  
December 2010  [5]  
February 2011  [3]  
March 2011  [1]  
April 2011  [4]  
July 2011  [5]  
August 2011  [3]  
October 2011  [1]  
December 2011  [2]  
January 2012  [2]  
February 2012  [5]  


4 Resorts (45 available units)  
SHOW    RESULTS PER PAGE  
Sort by:  LOCATION    NAME    RESORT ID     CHECK-IN DATE    


Displaying 1-4 of 4 resorts  Page  1   
   SUITEHOTEL PORTE DE LA CHAPELLE (#8465)  9  available units  
    75018 PARIS 
, 75018 
France 


map resort  Available Unit Size
Hotel


Check-In Date Range 
18-Sep-2010 - 
11-Dec-2010





   PARK & SUITES PARIS BIBLIOTHEQUE (#8656)  10  available units  
    75013 PARIS 
, 
France 


map resort  Available Unit Size
Studio


Check-In Date Range 
09-Oct-2010 - 
11-Dec-2010





   LE ROI DU LAC-EURODISNEY 1 WEEK (#8105)  19  available units  
    LOGNES / MARNE LA VALLEE 
, 77185 
France 


map resort  Available Unit Size
Studio


Check-In Date Range 
12-Feb-2011 - 
24-Dec-2011





   Royal Regency (#3068)  7  available units  
    Vincennes 
, 94300 
France 


map resort  Available Unit Size
Studio
1 BR


Check-In Date Range 
21-Jan-2012 - 
25-Feb-2012






Displaying 1-4 of 4 resorts  Page  1


----------



## "Roger"

First of all, miamidan, I thought that your recent posts did a nice job of summarizing what has been said by many of us.



Carolinian said:


> ....Published results but a hidden process of setting the numbers is the worst of all possible worlds, as it creates both the incentive and the mechanism for cheating.  A purely hidden system eliminates the incentive, while a fully transparent system eliminates the mechanism for cheating.  Half a loaf is worse, in this case, than no loaf.


Just a gentle reminder that Hilton, Disney, Hyatt not only have fixed numbers (which we are supposed to associate with state controlled systems), but not one of them reveals the process by which they set their numbers.  These are respected companies and I am sure the buyers appreciate seeing how their units will be valued within the total system.


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> _Why risk the crapshoot of an exact numbers system. 1 week has been taken since earlier today, but here is what I currently get for the Paris area from RCI Weeks, using a summer UK deposit:   _
> 
> 
> Search Results - Exchange ...


I really wasn't going to comment upon this post, but in the end it might be worth posting a different perspective.

First of all, congratuations on Carolinian owning a summer England week.  Not only is it is one of my favorite places, summer units in England are at the top of the timeshare food chain.  The fact that he can trade (via Weeks) to places near Paris is a plus.  I know of no resorts in Points that are nearby to Paris so if that were the only consideration involved Weeks would win out.  In short, I have no problem with Carolinian preferring his system, I just don't see this post as the deciding factor as to why we should all prefer his system.

Paris?  Nice. But as I look over his selection, the units that he sees that are actually in Paris are from mid-Septermber to mid-December.  To me (and I am not saying that this will be true for everyone) trading a sizzling red, two bedroom unit (maybe, one bedroom) for a slow season hotel room (even in Paris) is a steep price to pay.  For comparison, these are slow weeks at the Manhatten Club and if you were to trade a summer English timeshare for New York would be left with extra points to use elsewhere.

There is good availability on the above list throughout the year in Marne le Vallee, but again for a studio.  Where is Marne le Vallee?  The big attraction here is EuroDisneyland.  That is why there are multiple hotels and apparently a timeshere here.  If I want to see Disney, wouldn't I be better off going to Orlando where I could use my points for a luxurious two bedroom and still have some left over points (trading from a summer England)?  Of course, that ignores that you can take a train in daily to Paris, but again (this is me) I would miss the thrill of having my cafe au lait with a brioche at a sidewalk cafe actually in Paris. And again (my wife and myself), we just would not want to have dinner in Paris and then take a train at night to reach our residence. We would end up eating our dinners at some faux Paris establishments feeding off the EuroDisney site.  (...and that just doesn't excite me.)

I am not trying to claim any sort of victory here.  I am just pointing out that there are two sides to every story, or, in this case, different individuals might have different preferences.  If I had a summer week in England, I would be quite happy to have it be in Points.


----------



## rickandcindy23

> Just a gentle reminder that Hilton, Disney, Hyatt not only have fixed numbers (which we are supposed to associate with state controlled systems), but not one of them reveals the process by which they set their numbers. These are respected companies and I am sure the buyers appreciate seeing how their units will be valued within the total system.



Hyatt isn't in RCI, except the few hotel rooms I have seen (not timeshares, which are in II, exclusively).  

From another thread about SBP, RCI is not allowing anyone to deposit their reserved week anymore.  

I would like to know how RCI is going to reveal the trading power of a Sheraton Broadway Plantation or Desert Oasis in their system, when Starwood now controls all deposits.  Are they going to tell you that a deposit will have X trading value, no matter what week Starwood assigns?  

Transparency isn't going to work with the way Starwood and RCI have manipulated the system.  You can no longer deposit your reserved week into RCI for exchange.  Lousy, lousy deal for Starwood owners.


----------



## Carolinian

rickandcindy23 said:


> Hyatt isn't in RCI, except the few hotel rooms I have seen (not timeshares, which are in II, exclusively).
> 
> From another thread about SBP, RCI is not allowing anyone to deposit their reserved week anymore.
> 
> I would like to know how RCI is going to reveal the trading power of a Sheraton Broadway Plantation or Desert Oasis in their system, when Starwood now controls all deposits.  Are they going to tell you that a deposit will have X trading value, no matter what week Starwood assigns?
> 
> Transparency isn't going to work with the way Starwood and RCI have manipulated the system.  You can no longer deposit your reserved week into RCI for exchange.  Lousy, lousy deal for Starwood owners.



The politics between RCI and developers only get worse with a published value system, where the developers get a real benefit from an exagerated valuation.

The best bet is to own a deeded fixed week, and then no developer can tell you what it is that you can deposit.  Too much developer control is one of the big, big problems with the mini-systems.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Fortunately for me (because I own several Sheraton Broadway Plantation), Starwood may dump our resort because it isn't of the same quality as the Westins.  Well, no kidding!  I have gotten this info from a guy who apparently works for Starwood.  

We need to get SPM or VRI to manage Broadway Plantation, and then we can go back to reserving our weeks and depositing as we please.  I would be just fine with that.  I am cheering for Starwood to dump us.   And our fees couldn't possibly go higher than they are now.  I think they will go down--maybe a lot. 

I just don't know how Starwood will still be involved at SBP, since they have sold properties there, and they have assigned Staroptions to the ownership.  This could be expensive for those of us not in the Starwood system.  Starwood may still manage and charge us high $$ for amenities and common areas.  That would be the pits.


----------



## itisme

*Good point*



miamidan said:


> On the other hand those folks that have been trading prime weeks for those "overbuilt" areas might get change back which might show them value to keep those prime weeks in the system.




I agree. There are 2 effects;

1. Encourage prime week owners to deposit since since they can get value for their week (they could get more than 1 week vacation out with the change back)

2. Increase demand for overbuilt areas and shouder season weeks - If one can travel shoulder season or like to vacation in over built areas they will exchange and get change back instead of waiting for those weeks to show up in last call.  


I think the changes to the weeks system is going to affect the RCI points members. Desirable 9K points exchanges will dry out.  They should just merge the points and weeks system into one system. However, it will probably not happen because of short stay feature in the points system.


----------



## Carolinian

1. Prime week owners generally are looking for other prime weeks.  If they also want lesser weeks, they will likely do what I do and own something like SA to trade for those lesser weeks.  I really don't see someone owning Allen House trading it for 10 weeks in Orlando or the Canary Islands, which is probably about equal value. I also do not see RCI setting up a fair number system which would give true equal value.  Developers in overbuilt areas have too much political clout with RCI and will see that RCI puts in thumb on the scales for their benefit.

2. From my own experience as an HOA president on the OBX, I can tell you from the records there that the overwhelming majority of summer beach owners there (and likely similar resorts elsewhere) own to use and have zero interest in exchanging in the first place.  Most of our summer weeks were still owned by the families that originally bought them from the developer and almost all of those had dropped their exchange company membership as soon as the free period paid by the developer expired for them.  The prospect of five weeks in an overbuilt area is not going to entice them into the exchange world.

3.  The reverse is a big problem.  Combining two or three weeks, and therefore two or three maintenance fees, to get one week is a horrible deal financially, and those who own weeks that will be put into that position will be bailing out in droves.  Those who still want to engage in exchanging will be buying up the better weeks on eBay and the lesser weeks will be impossible to sell to exchangers.  Those resorts which do not figure this out and develop own-to-use markets for their off season weeks will run a big risk of going belly up.




itisme said:


> I agree. There are 2 effects;
> 
> 1. Encourage prime week owners to deposit since since they can get value for their week (they could get more than 1 week vacation out with the change back)
> 
> 2. Increase demand for overbuilt areas and shouder season weeks - If one can travel shoulder season or like to vacation in over built areas they will exchange and get change back instead of waiting for those weeks to show up in last call.
> 
> 
> I think the changes to the weeks system is going to affect the RCI points members. Desirable 9K points exchanges will dry out.  They should just merge the points and weeks system into one system. However, it will probably not happen because of short stay feature in the points system.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> 2. From my own experience as an HOA president on the OBX, I can tell you from the records there that the overwhelming majority of summer beach owners there (and likely similar resorts elsewhere) own to use and have zero interest in exchanging in the first place.  Most of our summer weeks were still owned by the families that originally bought them from the developer and almost all of those had dropped their exchange company membership as soon as the free period paid by the developer expired for them.  The prospect of five weeks in an overbuilt area is not going to entice them into the exchange world.


True, they probably won't be interested in 5 consecutive weeks in Orlando, Williamsburg, or any other places, but they still might see value in trading for 5 concurrent weeks for the same reason they bought their timeshare in the first place.  They want to travel with family - and maybe they would take those 5 concurrent weeks and have the extended family visit Orlando or Williamsburg together.  Or maybe they've recently retured, and they might spend 3 weeks in the Canary Islands.  Maybe not something that interests many European owners, but it might entice US owners who won't consider a trip overseas unless it is for multiple weeks.  Or maybe that Allen House owner is considering a trip to the US.  Again, they might not consider the trip worthwhile unless they can spend 3-4 consecutive weeks, maybe 2 in Orlando, and 1 or 2 elsewhere.



Carolinian said:


> 3.  The reverse is a big problem.  Combining two or three weeks, and therefore two or three maintenance fees, to get one week is a horrible deal financially, and those who own weeks that will be put into that position will be bailing out in droves.  Those who still want to engage in exchanging will be buying up the better weeks on eBay and the lesser weeks will be impossible to sell to exchangers.  Those resorts which do not figure this out and develop own-to-use markets for their off season weeks will run a big risk of going belly up.


When those 2 or 3 maintenance fees are in the range of $400, rather than the $1000 or more we see at many top resorts now, it's not the horrible deal you claim.  Particularly if the exchange is a once-in-a-lifetime type of exchange.  You have to remember that timeshares are marketed to an entirely different demographic than they were 20 years ago.  The presentations are always about the top 5 destination you would like to visit some day.  Many of the people who are buying are not thee type who would otherwise save up for a nice vacation every 3 years - they would always find something else to spend the money on.  Yet, if they have that mid-range timeshare, they pay their fees every year, and could forgo the annual vacation (many do anyway), to go somewhere special every 2 or 3 years.  Even if it costs more than it would renting, in most cases they would have to borrow the money to do so (on credit card or otherwise).  Once you add those interest charges, they end up paying way more by renting.

We all understand this is not something you would do, but it is something others would.  It is offering opportunities for owners of the white and blue weeks.  Perhaps we will find they discount everything by 50% a month before check-in, and 75% 2 weeks out.  Maybe those blue week owners won't have simple access to everything that way, but they will still have viable options to trade up.  And maybe those with mid-range weeks will have more options than the blue weeks at that point, rather than everybody competing for the same options.  Consider that prime week the points members are currently getting for 9000 points.  At 46 days out, it costs a boatload, and is only visible to 20% of the weeks members.  Suddenly a day later it costs 9000 points, and is visitble to ALL weeks members.  Does that really make sense?


----------



## Carolinian

Looking at the big picture, those lesser week owners are going to find that renting from RCI will present a better value than combining two or three weeks plus an exchange fee to get one.  This is going to create a tidal wave of bailouts among those who own to exchange.

As to most summer week owners, they simply aren't interested in exchanging, period.  They are not members of exchange companies, even free memberships.  They go to their week every summer.  They know the other owners of other units that week and have known them for years.  Their children have grown up together vacationing together at the beach.  People who own at impersonal mega resorts probably would not understand.


----------



## Mel

I understand completely, maybe you don't.

I own at a beach resort, and 10% of the summer weeks are regularly traded - just not the same 10% every year.  I don't think it's unusual for people to exchange out once in 10 years.  I also don't think it's unusual to think these people might change their habits when their children are off on their own.  Yes, they will eventually have grandchildren, but often there is a gap between the time the kids leave home and when they have those grandchildren.  I know many people who have kept their beach weeks, but travel other places now that their kids are in college, and plan to return to th beach with grandchildren when the time comes.  They are enjoying other pursuits for the time being.

Indeed, there must be summer week owners who exchange, or RCI would never have any summer weeks as part of their inventory.  Perhaps with this new system those "few" summer weeks will be available to a larger number of exchangers, as they have a way to boost their "trade power" by borrowing from another week.

We'll see what happens when the new system is introduced.  Even if RCI does have some rental weeks, they have a limited supply.  Do you really think RCI is going to lower the rental costs just to undercut the exchange system?  Why would they do that, when there are renters willing to pay more?  Doesn't make much business sense.


----------



## Carolinian

Mel, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe you have ever been on the board at that resort to be able to look at records to know if it is the same 10% of summer owners who exchange.  I have been in a position to do that and I have done that.  Our resort kept as part of records the exchange company affiliations of our members, so it was actually quite easy to see who was not a member of any exchange company.

You really think it is common for someone to pay RCI dues for ten years just to use it for one year?  Why, for their wonderful magazine???  This would be economically stupid behavior.  The cost would far exceed any benefit. Again, from the actual records, I did not see a single owner who fit this profile that you claim is ''not unusual''.

Many of the long time summer owners turn up their nose at exchanging so much that it is hard to even get them interested in a free exchange company membership as a safety valve if for some year they cannot use their week.  They have even less use for one that costs money.  It is much easier to get interest in independent exchange companies among people who already exchange and have seen the decline of RCI as an exchange company.  The summer own-to-use people are just not interested.  Again, I know that from the resort promoting use of indepedents.

The difference, Mel, is that I am arguing from facts while you are arguing from speculation, and speculation looking through rose-colored RCI glasses at that!





Mel said:


> I understand completely, maybe you don't.
> 
> I own at a beach resort, and 10% of the summer weeks are regularly traded - just not the same 10% every year.  I don't think it's unusual for people to exchange out once in 10 years.  I also don't think it's unusual to think these people might change their habits when their children are off on their own.  Yes, they will eventually have grandchildren, but often there is a gap between the time the kids leave home and when they have those grandchildren.  I know many people who have kept their beach weeks, but travel other places now that their kids are in college, and plan to return to th beach with grandchildren when the time comes.  They are enjoying other pursuits for the time being.
> 
> Indeed, there must be summer week owners who exchange, or RCI would never have any summer weeks as part of their inventory.  Perhaps with this new system those "few" summer weeks will be available to a larger number of exchangers, as they have a way to boost their "trade power" by borrowing from another week.
> 
> We'll see what happens when the new system is introduced.  Even if RCI does have some rental weeks, they have a limited supply.  Do you really think RCI is going to lower the rental costs just to undercut the exchange system?  Why would they do that, when there are renters willing to pay more?  Doesn't make much business sense.


----------



## Cathyb

*Carolian...*



Carolinian said:


> Mel, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe you have ever been on the board at that resort to be able to look at records to know if it is the same 10% of summer owners who exchange.  I have been in a position to do that and I have done that.  Our resort kept as part of records the exchange company affiliations of our members, so it was actually quite easy to see who was not a member of any exchange company.
> 
> You really think it is common for someone to pay RCI dues for ten years just to use it for one year?  Why, for their wonderful magazine???  This would be economically stupid behavior.  The cost would far exceed any benefit. Again, from the actual records, I did not see a single owner who fit this profile that you claim is ''not unusual''.
> 
> Many of the long time summer owners turn up their nose at exchanging so much that it is hard to even get them interested in a free exchange company membership as a safety valve if for some year they cannot use their week.  They have even less use for one that costs money.  It is much easier to get interest in independent exchange companies among people who already exchange and have seen the decline of RCI as an exchange company.  The summer own-to-use people are just not interested.  Again, I know that from the resort promoting use of indepedents.
> 
> The difference, Mel, is that I am arguing from facts while you are arguing from speculation, and speculation looking through rose-colored RCI glasses at that!



Occasionally there are people that only use their beach timeshare once in 5 years or so -- we are one example.  Over 30 years we accumulated seven weeks of timeshares -- so we rotate where we want to go.  Sometimes we exchange those ocean gems for other high end places like Paris or London.  Different strokes for different folks -


----------



## Carolinian

Oh, I quite agree that there are people who exchange fairly often and occaisionally use their week.  That pattern actually does make economic sense with an exchange company that charges annual membership fees, and our records did show that.  Indeed their were shoulder and off season owners with the same pattern.  In these situations, there was enough use of the exchange company to justify paying an annual membership fee.

There are also own to use people who turn up their nose at exchanging in all seasons.  When I was first elected to the board, the HOA president was a retired gentleman who owned one January week that he had bought from the developer at developer prices.  He was financially well off and could have afforded any week, but he did not like a lot of children running around and January solved that problem for him.  He would just about tell members to their face that anyone who exchanged rather than used at the resort was a lesser member than those who were loyal enough to use their weeks.  Indeed, during his presidency, if he had gotten his way, he would have cut the resort loose from RCI and had no exchange affiliation at all.  I was elected by a pro-RCI group of owners who were determined to stop that from happening and we did.

The pattern I have never seen and the one which I suspect is quite rare to the extent it exists at all is the one Mel postulated, an owner who exchanges once in every ten years or so and maintains 10 years of exchange company membership just to make that one exchange.  That is insanity from an economic standpoint, and I suspect most people have the brains to figure that out.

The owner who regularly exchanges but occaisionally uses his week is not a whole lot different from the owner who always exchanges.  In both cases the annual cost of an exchange company membership is well justified.

Another interesting trend is that over time the percentage who use increases relative to those who exchange, and this has been happening since back before members had reason to be upset with RCI.  I suspect the cause is that new buyers do not get the exchange company hype in a resale transaction that they do in an initial developer sale.  A higher proportion of resale buyers are looking for a week because they like to vacation in that area.  In talking to some European timeshare managers, they had noticed the same trend at their resorts.





Cathyb said:


> Occasionally there are people that only use their beach timeshare once in 5 years or so -- we are one example.  Over 30 years we accumulated seven weeks of timeshares -- so we rotate where we want to go.  Sometimes we exchange those ocean gems for other high end places like Paris or London.  Different strokes for different folks -


----------



## EAM

*rebranding too?*

If RCI does make such a major change in its operations, I wonder whether they'd also rebrand themselves with the Wyndham name somehow.


----------



## timeos2

*The uninformed overshadow the knowledgeable by factors of 100*



Carolinian said:


> Oh, I quite agree that there are people who exchange fairly often and occaisionally use their week.  That pattern actually does make economic sense with an exchange company that charges annual membership fees, and our records did show that.  Indeed their were shoulder and off season owners with the same pattern.  In these situations, there was enough use of the exchange company to justify paying an annual membership fee.
> 
> The pattern I have never seen and the one which I suspect is quite rare to the extent it exists at all is the one Mel postulated, an owner who exchanges once in every ten years or so and maintains 10 years of exchange company membership just to make that one exchange.  That is insanity from an economic standpoint, and I suspect most people have the brains to figure that out.
> 
> The owner who regularly exchanges but occaisionally uses his week is not a whole lot different from the owner who always exchanges.  In both cases the annual cost of an exchange company membership is well justified.
> 
> Another interesting trend is that over time the percentage who use increases relative to those who exchange, and this has been happening since back before members had reason to be upset with RCI.  I suspect the cause is that new buyers do not get the exchange company hype in a resale transaction that they do in an initial developer sale.  A higher proportion of resale buyers are looking for a week because they like to vacation in that area.  In talking to some European timeshare managers, they had noticed the same trend at their resorts.



Actually based on the two resorts where I have full access to the operational documents - both over 15 years old and one over 20 - there are a surprising number of owners who are in RCI (or II) and deposit only 1 or two times over a decade.  I'm talking 25% of owners!  

Apparently they got membership in the exchange company when they bought and in reality have never fully grasped how that works or that they are not in any way required to maintain that membership in order to use their time. This despite decades of newsletters telling them how things work and, of course, the never ending "presentations" on site regarding options they have to "improve or enhance" their ownership.  They simply do not take the time to really understand what they bought and how to best utilize it cost effectively. 

About the only times they seem to think about it at all is when the bills are due or they are using the resort. It is a nice break and they really don't put a whole lot of effort into becoming timeshare guru's. It is a far larger number than would seem logical and it's easy to see how this group feeds the timeshare sales machine that depends so much on uninformed potential purchasers. They are ready and willing to be sold the next best thing with their money and again never take the time to really figure out what they already own and how best to use it. 

Timeshare sellers and the exchange companies - as well as the lowlife PCC and phone solicitors - all seem to know and trade on this extremely well. We are kidding ourselves if we think most owners are knowledgeable and able to maximize the value they purchased. It is the vast majority that are uninformed and make no effort to do things the most efficient way. They blindly pay what gets billed and stand as the easy mark for hearing "a better way" that they will also fail to fully understand or use if they do sign on for it. 

So despite your belief I know of at least two cases - telling me it is far more common than not.  Simply looking at the sales figures and the glut of unwanted timeshares for sale worldwide says that a vast majority of buyers have never grasped it and never will.


----------



## miamidan

I am surprised that with all the personal privacy protection laws out there that my resorts know details of my membership such as renewal habits etc.


----------



## timeos2

*They don't care what you do with your time*



miamidan said:


> I am surprised that with all the personal privacy protection laws out there that my resorts know details of my membership such as renewal habits etc.



Nothing personal being disclosed. It is a matter of looking at if the account has an RCI (or II or whatever) number & is it active or inactive. If it is active there is a history of use (deposits) or none to the exchange involved. Harmless stuff. An active account simply means its been paid so if its active and no deposits for X years then we can assume they are depositing other resorts, using it for getaway offers or simply are paying for something they really don't need. What is going on between the owner and the exchange company is unknown but we do know if there have been no deposits from the resort for that owner.


----------



## Dave599

EAM said:


> If RCI does make such a major change in its operations, I wonder whether they'd also rebrand themselves with the Wyndham name somehow.



At the corporate level they already have, they just have not promoted it much, its something like "Wyndham Timeshare Exchange and Rentals" 

Dave


----------



## Dave599

Carolinian said:


> Mel, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe you have ever been on the board at that resort to be able to look at records to know if it is the same 10% of summer owners who exchange.  I have been in a position to do that and I have done that.  Our resort kept as part of records the exchange company affiliations of our members, so it was actually quite easy to see who was not a member of any exchange company.
> 
> You really think it is common for someone to pay RCI dues for ten years just to use it for one year?  Why, for their wonderful magazine???  This would be economically stupid behavior.  The cost would far exceed any benefit. Again, from the actual records, I did not see a single owner who fit this profile that you claim is ''not unusual''.
> 
> Many of the long time summer owners turn up their nose at exchanging so much that it is hard to even get them interested in a free exchange company membership as a safety valve if for some year they cannot use their week.  They have even less use for one that costs money.  It is much easier to get interest in independent exchange companies among people who already exchange and have seen the decline of RCI as an exchange company.  The summer own-to-use people are just not interested.  Again, I know that from the resort promoting use of indepedents.
> 
> The difference, Mel, is that I am arguing from facts while you are arguing from speculation, and speculation looking through rose-colored RCI glasses at that!



There will always be owners that purchased to use, and by and far that is the best reason to buy, always buy where you want to go, if you never are a member of a trading company...... 

In the end membership will be a moot point, RCI is pushing more and more for clubs, rci loves clubs, hilton, shell bluegreen, holiday-inn vacation village etc etc etc you don't have a choice, membership in rci is part of the club and rci does not have to beg you to renew, once a year bluegreen hands them a check for 6 million and its a done deal no fuss. I would guess in 5 years you will be hard pressed to find an independent resort not part of a club......

Dave


----------



## Carolinian

My comments were limited to summer beach week owners.  You are apparently looking at all year and in Orlando.

The summer owners have a lot of differnces from shoulder and off season owners.  One is stability.  While other times of the year, most weeks have changed hands more than once over the years, some 6 or 8 times, the vast majority of summer weeks still belong to the families that bought them from the developer.  For many units, a majority of those summer weeks still belong to the person who bought new from the developer and have not even changed hands within the family.  The overwhelming majority of these summer week owners bought to use, not exchange, and once the developer paid ''free'' exchange company membership ran out, they simply did not pay to renew.  These families have spent their summer week at the beach with the same set of families for years, and their is quite a comraderie among each set of week owners.  Indeed that also exists to some degree even in off season.  The manager of another OBX resort was telling me of the passing of one of their members, an older lady who had bought all four February weeks in the same unit from the developer.  Her husband had died many years before, and every year she would drive down from Tidewater Virginia with her multiple cats and move in for the month.  She always had a standing invitation for the resort manager to stop by for a drink at the end of the day and one day each week, she would invite all owners / exchangers / renters at the resort to her unit for a cocktail party.

I see that we both share the view that to effectively run an HOA, you have to get to know the patterns among resort owners. Those patterns, I am sure differ to some degree between different types of resort areas but still have their similarities.  Even though distance necesitating my leaving my HOA position when I took my present job, I still enjoy talking shop with resort managers when I trade in, and still communicate from time to time with HOA board members and managers from the OBX.




timeos2 said:


> Actually based on the two resorts where I have full access to the operational documents - both over 15 years old and one over 20 - there are a surprising number of owners who are in RCI (or II) and deposit only 1 or two times over a decade.  I'm talking 25% of owners!
> 
> Apparently they got membership in the exchange company when they bought and in reality have never fully grasped how that works or that they are not in any way required to maintain that membership in order to use their time. This despite decades of newsletters telling them how things work and, of course, the never ending "presentations" on site regarding options they have to "improve or enhance" their ownership.  They simply do not take the time to really understand what they bought and how to best utilize it cost effectively.
> 
> About the only times they seem to think about it at all is when the bills are due or they are using the resort. It is a nice break and they really don't put a whole lot of effort into becoming timeshare guru's. It is a far larger number than would seem logical and it's easy to see how this group feeds the timeshare sales machine that depends so much on uninformed potential purchasers. They are ready and willing to be sold the next best thing with their money and again never take the time to really figure out what they already own and how best to use it.
> 
> Timeshare sellers and the exchange companies - as well as the lowlife PCC and phone solicitors - all seem to know and trade on this extremely well. We are kidding ourselves if we think most owners are knowledgeable and able to maximize the value they purchased. It is the vast majority that are uninformed and make no effort to do things the most efficient way. They blindly pay what gets billed and stand as the easy mark for hearing "a better way" that they will also fail to fully understand or use if they do sign on for it.
> 
> So despite your belief I know of at least two cases - telling me it is far more common than not.  Simply looking at the sales figures and the glut of unwanted timeshares for sale worldwide says that a vast majority of buyers have never grasped it and never will.


----------



## Carolinian

I beg to differ.  Independent resorts will stay independent.  Many are waking up to the need to diversify their exchange relationships.  I have traded into a number of resorts in Europe which had DAE material not only in the office, but also in the units, for example.

The ''clubs'' you mention are resort mini-systems built by and controlled by a developer.  For the most part such developers do not try to move in and take over existing independent timeshares, but rather build their resorts from the ground up.  There are exceptions, like Festiva and Celebrity and the old Sunterra but many HOA's are savvy enough to fight off such bottom feeders.  I had a chance to meet several board members at a resort I traded into in the UK and one told me the story of how that resort had fought off Sunterra when they had bought out the remaining inventory of the original developer.  The HOA simply amended its governing instruments to give each timeshare owner only one vote no matter how many weeks they owned.  That way, even if Sunterra conned some of their members into their points system and got ownership of their weeks, Sunterra still only had one vote at the HOA meeting no matter how many weeks they owned.  Keeping control of the HOA, they also shut out Sunterra from moving into management of the resort.




Dave599 said:


> There will always be owners that purchased to use, and by and far that is the best reason to buy, always buy where you want to go, if you never are a member of a trading company......
> 
> In the end membership will be a moot point, RCI is pushing more and more for clubs, rci loves clubs, hilton, shell bluegreen, holiday-inn vacation village etc etc etc you don't have a choice, membership in rci is part of the club and rci does not have to beg you to renew, once a year bluegreen hands them a check for 6 million and its a done deal no fuss. I would guess in 5 years you will be hard pressed to find an independent resort not part of a club......
> 
> Dave


----------



## miamidan

Carolinian,

You had mentioned a previous post you did that showed the major growth in the next several years was in the independents.  I think there was a link or pipeline chart to show the units/projects in pipeline.  Do you have that to repost by any chance?

We would like to find a more local timeshare with which we could establish "residency" on a regular basis but, we would want to rid ourselves of one current timeshare and even though we bought both from ebay for next to nothing you can't get next to nothing for them.

Additionally as much as I love the fixed week concept I would probably try to find a summer float which would then negate a great deal of the timeshares near me....

Those owners that come back to the resort every year are invaluable.  I had never even considered that some developers/hoa's would look at me as a second class citizen because I choose to exchange.


----------



## skimble

Is this the big Sunday??  The system is down until sunday night.


----------



## Carolinian

There was a link to the article in a trade journal on the Street Talk Blog.  I think I posted it here or on TS4MS or both at the time, but I do not have it now.




miamidan said:


> Carolinian,
> 
> You had mentioned a previous post you did that showed the major growth in the next several years was in the independents.  I think there was a link or pipeline chart to show the units/projects in pipeline.  Do you have that to repost by any chance?
> 
> We would like to find a more local timeshare with which we could establish "residency" on a regular basis but, we would want to rid ourselves of one current timeshare and even though we bought both from ebay for next to nothing you can't get next to nothing for them.
> 
> Additionally as much as I love the fixed week concept I would probably try to find a summer float which would then negate a great deal of the timeshares near me....
> 
> Those owners that come back to the resort every year are invaluable.  I had never even considered that some developers/hoa's would look at me as a second class citizen because I choose to exchange.


----------



## Dave599

*Sunday down*



skimble said:


> Is this the big Sunday??  The system is down until sunday night.



No, the "The big Weekend" won't happen until the fall November/December time frame when rci will be down for several days, all of it web, call center etc, this is just a web update, the call center is still available. I just talked to them.......

Dave


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> Mel, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe you have ever been on the board at that resort to be able to look at records to know if it is the same 10% of summer owners who exchange.  I have been in a position to do that and I have done that.  Our resort kept as part of records the exchange company affiliations of our members, so it was actually quite easy to see who was not a member of any exchange company.
> 
> You really think it is common for someone to pay RCI dues for ten years just to use it for one year?  Why, for their wonderful magazine???  This would be economically stupid behavior.  The cost would far exceed any benefit. Again, from the actual records, I did not see a single owner who fit this profile that you claim is ''not unusual''.
> 
> Many of the long time summer owners turn up their nose at exchanging so much that it is hard to even get them interested in a free exchange company membership as a safety valve if for some year they cannot use their week.  They have even less use for one that costs money.  It is much easier to get interest in independent exchange companies among people who already exchange and have seen the decline of RCI as an exchange company.  The summer own-to-use people are just not interested.  Again, I know that from the resort promoting use of indepedents.
> 
> The difference, Mel, is that I am arguing from facts while you are arguing from speculation, and speculation looking through rose-colored RCI glasses at that!


No, Steve, I am not arguing from speculation.  One does not have to serve on the Board in order to be involved with the resort.  Owner do have access to resort records, and in fact with this particular resort a great deal of information was shared with the owners because we had to consider a variety of options when we were forced to finance the rebuilding of our resort from the ground up.

Don't assume that the experience at your resort matches the experience at every other resort.  When I purchased my first week at Tropical Breeze, there was no building, and would be none for several years.  I did my due diligence, and decided it was still worth buying.  When the resort was rebuilt, the owners were involved in many of the decisions, not just informed of what the board had decided (as should happen).  Some of these decisions involved not just the needs of owners, but of possible exchangers, because the board understood and cared about the trade power of our little beach resort.  Some decisions were made with exchangers in mind - things that factor into not just trade power, but ratings within the 2 major exchange companies.  While many owners of single beach weeks don't exchange, and don't join exchange companies, many own more than one week, and join the exchange company primarily to trade their non-beach weeks.  Because they are already members of the exchange company, the do occasionally trade those summer beach weeks.  Many also complete internal trades through the exchange companies (not all resorts handle their own internal exchanges).

Just because my data doesn't match yours, don't assume that my data is incorrect.  Perhaps we're looking at the same elephant from different perspectives.  I never said your data was wrong, did I?  I only said you're not seeing the whole picture.  Your perspective is no more valid than mine, or Roger's, or anyone else's here.


----------



## Mel

Dave599 said:


> There will always be owners that purchased to use, and by and far that is the best reason to buy, always buy where you want to go, if you never are a member of a trading company......
> 
> In the end membership will be a moot point, RCI is pushing more and more for clubs, rci loves clubs, hilton, shell bluegreen, holiday-inn vacation village etc etc etc you don't have a choice, membership in rci is part of the club and rci does not have to beg you to renew, once a year bluegreen hands them a check for 6 million and its a done deal no fuss. I would guess in 5 years you will be hard pressed to find an independent resort not part of a club......


If membership in the club always required membership in an exchange company, I would agree.  But that's not always the case.  Plenty of weeks are owned at those "club" resorts, where the owners have not joined the club, and might never do so.  Orange Lake is a "Holiday Inn Club" resort, but I am not a member of the Holiday Inn Club.  Those are the people who bought weeks at the River Island section of the resort, or converted to points and joined the club when they did.  My other resort, Tropical Breeze, is part of the Escapes! group, but again, only a portion of the weeks are part of that system.  My week is independant (and our board is in fact independant).  Escapes! controls some of our weeks which are traded through their points system (which is through II, but I exchange through RCI).

Even if the groups start "buying up" resorts, they are either buying the unsold inventory, or are being brought in as a management company.  In either case, it would be up to the HOA to change the timeshare plan if they want to "require" exchange company membership.  Remember that if they do that, it would mean the own-to-use members would end up subsidizing the own-to-exchange members.  I just don't see that happening.


----------



## Egret1986

*That's why I like RCI Points so much more than Weeks right now*



Mel said:


> When those 2 or 3 maintenance fees are in the range of $400, rather than the $1000 or more we see at many top resorts now, it's not the horrible deal you claim.  Particularly if the exchange is a once-in-a-lifetime type of exchange.  You have to remember that timeshares are marketed to an entirely different demographic than they were 20 years ago.  The presentations are always about the top 5 destination you would like to visit some day.  Many of the people who are buying are not thee type who would otherwise save up for a nice vacation every 3 years - they would always find something else to spend the money on.  Yet, if they have that mid-range timeshare, they pay their fees every year, and could forgo the annual vacation (many do anyway), to go somewhere special every 2 or 3 years.  Even if it costs more than it would renting, in most cases they would have to borrow the money to do so (on credit card or otherwise).  Once you add those interest charges, they end up paying way more by renting.
> 
> We all understand this is not something you would do, but it is something others would.  It is offering opportunities for owners of the white and blue weeks.  Perhaps we will find they discount everything by 50% a month before check-in, and 75% 2 weeks out.  Maybe those blue week owners won't have simple access to everything that way, but they will still have viable options to trade up.  And maybe those with mid-range weeks will have more options than the blue weeks at that point, rather than everybody competing for the same options.  Consider that prime week the points members are currently getting for 9000 points.  At 46 days out, it costs a boatload, and is only visible to 20% of the weeks members.  Suddenly a day later it costs 9000 points, and is visitble to ALL weeks members.  Does that really make sense?



I have been a Weeks member since 1984 and a Points member since 2006.  I only utilize my Points for a Standard Points reservation once a year.  I check at exactly 10 months out for that special vacation that I just can't ever seem to find any more in Weeks.

That special vacation is one I would never get in Weeks, although I do own summer beach weeks on the OBX and in Virginia Beach.  Next Easter, I have a 1BR for Residences at the Crane.  I don't know what the maintenance fees are to own there or what it would cost to buy the actual timeshare, but I am more than happy to combine the maintenance fee of 1-1/2 timeshare weeks ($850) to get this exchange.  I checked to see what a reservation for that same week would cost through the resort.  This 1BR had a price tag of $7000 for that particular 7-nights.  If I could find the week as a rental, I am sure it would be less, but I doubt it would be for the $850 + fees.  Points are better for me to be able to get this week than not be able to get the exchange at all with a summer beach week in Weeks.  Except the special week each year, all my other points are utilized for the last minute 6500-9000points vacations.

I just don't currently see this "transparency" as a negative in Weeks.  

Also, though it was brought up as a negative, I haven't found the ability to purchase additional points through RCI as such.  Though I prefer to buy extra points through other owners for $.01/point or less, it is still a deal to purchase them at $.02/point through RCI when I'm short on points and there's a great place online for 7500 points that I can use.

Points systems don't work for everyone.  I just know they work so much better for me than Weeks.  If Residences at the Crane were in Weeks (not just hotel), then with the "transparency" I could see how many more credits it would take to get in there over and above what credits I receive for my summer beach week.  I have the option then of deciding whether or not it is worth it to me.  I find points/credits give more flexibility and options.

Sure, if I could get that Crane week for the exchange of one week in Weeks, it would be a much better deal (only one MF).  I really don't deposit any of my prime weeks in RCI Weeks any more.  Hopefully, this "transparency" will encourage Weeks' owners to once again deposit their prime weeks and increase this inventory.

I can't say whether that will happen or not, but hopefully it will.


----------



## Dave599

Egret1986 said:


> I have been a Weeks member since 1984 and a Points member since 2006.  I only utilize my Points for a Standard Points reservation once a year.  I check at exactly 10 months out for that special vacation that I just can't ever seem to find any more in Weeks.
> 
> That special vacation is one I would never get in Weeks, although I do own summer beach weeks on the OBX and in Virginia Beach.  Next Easter, I have a 1BR for Residences at the Crane.  I don't know what the maintenance fees are to own there or what it would cost to buy the actual timeshare, but I am more than happy to combine the maintenance fee of 1-1/2 timeshare weeks ($850) to get this exchange.  I checked to see what a reservation for that same week would cost through the resort.  This 1BR had a price tag of $7000 for that particular 7-nights.  If I could find the week as a rental, I am sure it would be less, but I doubt it would be for the $850 + fees.  Points are better for me to be able to get this week than not be able to get the exchange at all with a summer beach week in Weeks.  Except the special week each year, all my other points are utilized for the last minute 6500-9000points vacations.
> 
> I just don't currently see this "transparency" as a negative in Weeks.
> 
> Also, though it was brought up as a negative, I haven't found the ability to purchase additional points through RCI as such.  Though I prefer to buy extra points through other owners for $.01/point or less, it is still a deal to purchase them at $.02/point through RCI when I'm short on points and there's a great place online for 7500 points that I can use.
> 
> Points systems don't work for everyone.  I just know they work so much better for me than Weeks.  If Residences at the Crane were in Weeks (not just hotel), then with the "transparency" I could see how many more credits it would take to get in there over and above what credits I receive for my summer beach week.  I have the option then of deciding whether or not it is worth it to me.  I find points/credits give more flexibility and options.
> 
> Sure, if I could get that Crane week for the exchange of one week in Weeks, it would be a much better deal (only one MF).  I really don't deposit any of my prime weeks in RCI Weeks any more.  Hopefully, this "transparency" will encourage Weeks' owners to once again deposit their prime weeks and increase this inventory.
> 
> I can't say whether that will happen or not, but hopefully it will.



I don't think the new "transparency"  will make a lot of difference to the trade pool except a lot of owners with little trading power will pull out completely. There likely be a period of adjustment say 3 to 6 months when all heck will break loose, when all the whiners who were sold a bill of goods, (red all year, gold crown blah blah blah), and now come to find they have a trading power of 5 will go elsewhere. 

Many of those "prime weeks" are in rci, there just in the rental system, now before you jump on the band wagon to start a new law suit. Its not rci putting them there, its us the owners its our fault not rci's rci is just taking advantage of it. My friend at rci tells me there is 2 types of rentals she can see them and tell the difference but from the website we can't they are all blended together for us....... so any calculations you may do looking at rentals is flawed because you can't tell which is which. From what I understand for her they are tagged R for regular rental (weeks deposits) and H for holiday rentals the H rentals are MEMBERS putting there units up for rental through there own resorts and the resorts putting them in rci's system. In all those hard to get areas gulf coast, the keys, coastal California 95 too 99 percent are H units its not rci stealing members deposits its MEMBERS renting there units......Its our own fault and I don't see that changing in the future....... Don't believe me check it out, call and check out the rentals in the keys, or the gulf coast of Florida for January or February and I bet there will be lots there and most will be owners renting there units ask the agent if its an R or H unit.

Wonder why there are never any great weeks/locations out there for trade any more look in the mirror......

Dave


----------



## Carolinian

If individual members really had the ability to put their own weeks up for rent through their resort, I suspect someone on TUG would have heard about it and reported it.  That would have been a new twist, and actually not necessarily a bad one.

What your ''friend'' is undoubtedly talking about is developers putting weeks up for straight rental rather than exchange.  Undoubtedly this does go on, but that only applies to resorts still in developer sales.  When you see the prime weeks at sold out resorts, this is NOT the source of their deposit.

For all of us owners, where this new system really will hit us is when all of the lesser week owners start bailing.  That will mean more of the m/f burden for the prime weeks to carry.  That is the big danger of all of this, especially since RCI with its usual sense of timing is going to roll this out just when m/f bills are going out.  Personally, I know enough to exchange elsewhere.  It is resort stability that I am concerned about.  It is not just the number being low.  The big problem will be when it no longer matches the number of resort areas it has always traded for in the past, and with RCI's politics, I am sure that will be part of the equation.




Dave599 said:


> I don't think the new "transparency"  will make a lot of difference to the trade pool except a lot of owners with little trading power will pull out completely. There likely be a period of adjustment say 3 to 6 months when all heck will break loose, when all the whiners who were sold a bill of goods, (red all year, gold crown blah blah blah), and now come to find they have a trading power of 5 will go elsewhere.
> 
> Many of those "prime weeks" are in rci, there just in the rental system, now before you jump on the band wagon to start a new law suit. Its not rci putting them there, its us the owners its our fault not rci's rci is just taking advantage of it. My friend at rci tells me there is 2 types of rentals she can see them and tell the difference but from the website we can't they are all blended together for us....... so any calculations you may do looking at rentals is flawed because you can't tell which is which. From what I understand for her they are tagged R for regular rental (weeks deposits) and H for holiday rentals the H rentals are MEMBERS putting there units up for rental through there own resorts and the resorts putting them in rci's system. In all those hard to get areas gulf coast, the keys, coastal California 95 too 99 percent are H units its not rci stealing members deposits its MEMBERS renting there units......Its our own fault and I don't see that changing in the future....... Don't believe me check it out, call and check out the rentals in the keys, or the gulf coast of Florida for January or February and I bet there will be lots there and most will be owners renting there units ask the agent if its an R or H unit.
> 
> Wonder why there are never any great weeks/locations out there for trade any more look in the mirror......
> 
> Dave


----------



## brankatz

I know VRI allows it's owners to put there units up for rent through the resort.  I own 2 resorts that are VRI associated and both will rent the unit for you if you so choose.  They do take part of the proceeds I do not know how much because I have just rented them on my own.


----------



## NurseLinda

*depositing in RCI*

Just got a call from RCI asking me to deposit my beachfront holiday season units and got my chance to say "I will be making no further deposits with RCI so that my weeks can be rented rather than made available for exchange to other RCI members."  RCI rep ended the call quickly!  Guess I'm "on the same page" as Carolinian and rickandcindy23 with regards to my feelings about RCI's having abused members' confidence in the company mission and promises for exchange availability.  Other exchange companies to use out there now.


----------



## Carolinian

brankatz said:


> I know VRI allows it's owners to put there units up for rent through the resort.  I own 2 resorts that are VRI associated and both will rent the unit for you if you so choose.  They do take part of the proceeds I do not know how much because I have just rented them on my own.



Various resorts do, indeed, do this in various fashions, and many have for years.  I have never heard of a resort then turning member rental inventory over to RCI.  None of the resorts I am reasonably familiar with on the OBX do that, and when I have talked to resort managers in Europe who rent weeks for members, the methods described to do so do NOT include renting through RCI.

RCI has made a lot of excuses to explain away their rentals of spacebank deposits, but they have been shown to be just that, excuses.  Unless you are dealing with someone like Bootleg or Anon, the best way to tell if someone from RCI is lying is to look to see if their lips are moving.


----------



## karyl3#1

AFARR said:


> Having just purchased my first week (red week on the OBX) if this will be a help or a hindrance.
> 
> However....from what I've read of the RCI Lawsuit, I think it might be a good thing.   Seems like a fair number of people are getting disgusted with RCI (hence the lawsuit)...people that had used them for years with successful trades were no longer getting what they wanted, good weeks were suddenly showing up in the rental category (rather than for exchange), etc.    There does seem to be a number of people on here who still successfully use RCI, but they know the best way to deposit and search...which is probably beyond many new (or even long term) RCI members.
> 
> This might be a good solution overall...the people that know how to use the system will still get the best trade credits (early deposit, etc. that they already use now), and it will be difficult for RCI to suddenly rent weeks that are deposited (instead of allowing for exchange).
> 
> I do see several valid points above:
> RCI's "valuation" may be way too subjective (or developer pushed).
> Overdeveloped areas probably shouldn't have as high a trade value (however, they often do see a large number of visitors vs. some underdeveloped areas...so that my even out).
> It will give traditional weeks owners a specific value on their property (and in looking at resale purchases...might be a good way to help find their real value) rather than allowing some vague formula to set the rate.
> 
> AFARR



Why do we have to pay and give points when wyndhan owns RCI seems
like a scam to me.k


----------



## karyl3#1

karyl3#1 said:


> Why do we have to pay and give points when wyndhan owns RCI seems
> like a scam to me.k


----------



## MichaelColey

Just reading this thread for the first time, so pardon the quoting of a couple older posts, but there were a couple things I wanted to comment on.





timeos2 said:


> - Consolidating. The resort you deposit is worth 40 on the trade scale. The one you want (one of the best, highest demand in the system as we all seem to desire) demands 55. Yo can take a combined value of another week to reach the 55.


I really don't like this, because it'll make some of the higher value resorts even harder to get.  Right now, very few RCI members can trade into DVC, for instance.  If *everyone* can trade into it (by using several years of deposits, multiple weeks, etc.), those weeks will disappear even quicker.

If this change does happen, we'll still be able to take advantage of the system (by finding units that give a high value per MF$), but it'll change the dynamics.  There will always be inefficiencies, and those of us with the most knowledge and flexibility will always win.



rickandcindy23 said:


> And my point was that I couldn't even get a last-minute week with my blue week.


Try exactly 45 days out.  That's how I got my 2BR in Kauai with a 1BR deposit of one of the worst Orlando weeks there is.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

MichaelColey said:


> Just reading this thread for the first time, so pardon the quoting of a couple older posts, but there were a couple things I wanted to comment on.I really don't like this, because it'll make some of the higher value resorts even harder to get.  Right now, very few RCI members can trade into DVC, for instance.  If *everyone* can trade into it (by using several years of deposits, multiple weeks, etc.), those weeks will disappear even quicker.
> 
> If this change does happen, we'll still be able to take advantage of the system (by finding units that give a high value per MF$), but it'll change the dynamics.  There will always be inefficiencies, and those of us with the most knowledge and flexibility will always win.
> 
> Try exactly 45 days out.  That's how I got my 2BR in Kauai with a 1BR deposit of one of the worst Orlando weeks there is.



Couple of points.

******

Re your comments about DVC, you're only thinking about it from the demand side.  You also need to consider the supply side.  Under a fixed week exchange program, there is little incentive for owners of the most highly demanded weeks to deposit their weeks, because almost everything available to them will be a trade down.  

By allowing owners of highly demanded weeks the opportunity to get "change back" that they can use to obtain added weeks, the points system gives those owners more reasons to deposit for exchange.

So. while what you're saying might be true, there will be an offset in terms of increased numbers of deposits.  Whether the increased supply is greater than or less than the increased demand is not clear.

******

Any system that operates with hidden information will always afford an advantage to those who have been able to figure out what is going on behind the hidden curtain.  Vast fortunes have been made in the financial markets that way.  Anything that increases transparency is always perceived as a disadvantage by those who have identified and inefficiency that they can exploit.  

In fact, there are examples of past discussions here at TUG about observed inefficiencies that have likely led RCI to "plug the leaks".  

******

I dropped out of participating in this thread awhile back, after I said my piece.

My opinion remains that letting exchangers know the value assigned to their deposit and the value required to make other deposits is better than not sharing that information with exchangers.  I remain totally unpersuaded by any argument that an identically operated system, but that doesn't tell people what their units are worth, is inherently better.

I do agree it would be convenient if RCI revealed the basis for the ratings. But even if the ratings basis is not revealed, I can see any disadvantage to telling members what their unit is worth.

Also, this is just academic to me, as we dropped out of RCI years ago.  But that had nothing to do with points and operating philosophy.  I approach it simply as a consumer of services.  And I've identified other alternatives that give me better value at lower cost.

YMMV.


----------



## Carolinian

Steve, the problem with the partially transparent system is that it creates both the motive and the opportunity to cook the books on values.  A fully transparent system where both the formulas and underlying data are revealed makes cooking the books impossible because everything is out in the open.  A fully non-published system creates no motive to cheat because a developer gets no advantage to rigging exchange power when no one will know the numbers anyway.  A partially transparent system that publishes the resulting values but hides the methodology behind those values, creates the incentive (published numbers) and the opportunity (hidden system of seting values) to cook the books on values.

As RCI Points has clearly shown, a partially transparent system will result in developers making corrupt bargains with RCI to rig their value numbers.  A partially transparent system is the worst of all worlds.


----------



## MichaelColey

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Any system that operates with hidden information will always afford an advantage to those who have been able to figure out what is going on behind the hidden curtain.


I would think that this would give the advantage to those of us on TUG.  The masses don't know how to fully utilize their timeshares, exchanges, etc.  I would hazard to guess that many of us on TUG are more knowledgable about timeshares than most timeshare salesmen and exchange company employees.  We have the advantage either way, but I think our advantage is even better in the current system.


----------



## bnoble

I think that's correct.  The "power of knowledge" will be less valuable in a more open system.  But, despite the fact that my relative advantage will be weakened, I have a hard time feeling bad about it---other owners deserve a fair shake too.

But, as to your earlier point:


> If everyone can trade into it (by using several years of deposits, multiple weeks, etc.), those weeks will disappear even quicker.


Maybe, but maybe not.  Some folks might not be willing to spend what it costs to make the exchange.  But, at least they will have the choice of doing so.  And, the flip side is also true.  Right now, I have a week on deposit that sees pretty much every DVC unit available.  I'm taking a solo trip next February---under the current scheme, if a 2BR is the first thing that turns up, I have no reason not to take it, because it costs the same as anything else, even though it literally is identical to a 1BR in terms of value to me.  What's more, I won't even consider a studio.  But, if I had to pay more "credits" for the 2BR, I'd pass on it for sure, and I *might* even give up the kitchen if the difference between a studio and a 1BR were high enough.


----------



## "Roger"

MichaelColey said:


> I would think that this would give the advantage to those of us on TUG.  The masses don't know how to fully utilize their timeshares, exchanges, etc.  I would hazard to guess that many of us on TUG are more knowledgable about timeshares than most timeshare salesmen and exchange company employees.  We have the advantage either way, but I think our advantage is even better in the current system.


I guess I am old fashion.  I don't care to participate in a system that gives advantages to those with inside (or quasi inside) knowledge.  I don't care if I lose some advantages.  If a system is fairer, that is where I want to be.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

Carolinian said:


> Steve, the problem with the partially transparent system is that it creates both the motive and the opportunity to cook the books on values.  A fully transparent system where both the formulas and underlying data are revealed makes cooking the books impossible because everything is out in the open.  A fully non-published system creates no motive to cheat because a developer gets no advantage to rigging exchange power when no one will know the numbers anyway.  A partially transparent system that publishes the resulting values but hides the methodology behind those values, creates the incentive (published numbers) and the opportunity (hidden system of seting values) to cook the books on values.
> 
> As RCI Points has clearly shown, a partially transparent system will result in developers making corrupt bargains with RCI to rig their value numbers.  A partially transparent system is the worst of all worlds.


When I patronize a business have little interest in what deal the business has cut with its suppliers.  I don't care what slotting provisions have been made between a food processor and a grocery store.  I don't care what special ticket rates might have been provided to a discount travel agency by an airline.  And I don't care what special deals are cut between any developer and any exchange company - be it RCI, II, SFX, HTSE, TPI (to name some companies that do have special cozy arrangements with specific developers and resorts).

What I do care about is what that supplier is willing to offer me for that price.  When RCI publishes points values, now an owner knows how much money they have available to spend and how much the various options are going to cost.

****

On reflection, I do have to admit I do care some what special relationships exist between certain resorts and exchange companies.  That's because it's nice to know that my chances of getting into certain resorts are better with certain exchange companies.  

But I care not what nefarious charades mighy lurk in the background between the entities.  I freely grant consenting adults the freedom to do whatever they desire in the privacy of their boardrooms.  

What matters to me is what that means in terms of what exchanges might be available to me and at what cost.


----------



## jjmanthei05

Carolinian said:


> A fully non-published system creates no motive to cheat because a developer gets no advantage to rigging exchange power when no one will know the numbers anyway.



I think you may be wrong in this instance. I think a fully non published system gives developers even more opportunity to cut deals with RCI and game the system since no one at that point would know it. So the developer can then sell a dog trader by showing potential customers they can see what a tiger can at a fraction of the cost("You may not like it here but look at where you can trade into with this resort"). No one would know unless someone who had that week posted what they saw on here. With a points based system it will allow for you to see if someone has in fact gamed the system since you can see how many points it would take to get into that week. 

I am slightly biased towards the new system since I believe it will be transparent for me to use. Since I have Wyndham points going in to make a deposit I will know X exchange is Y number of Wyndham points. No more guessing about deposit size or not being able to pull something. 

On a side note: Does anyone know what percentage of RCI deposits go unused? 

Jason


----------



## e.bram

Why blame RCI. Blame the prime weeks owners who use and rent NOT deposit.They are the culprits. Damn them.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

> *Jason asked: *On a side note: Does anyone know what percentage of RCI deposits go unused?



Jason,

It may be difficult for anyone to answer your specific question. But, RCI does publish an Independent Accountant's report every year and the latest is for the calander year that ended December 31, 2008.

The Independent Accountant's report can be accessed at the RCI website when you scroll down to disclosures at the bottom of the first page before entering your Username and Password. 

Once you access the disclosures you will note that the format is a pdf file.  

Scroll down to page 132 to get the report. 

RCI says that on December 31, 2008 it had an obligation to provide 1,710,685 interval weeks in a subsequent period and RCI confirmed 1,526,995 exchanges during 2008. 

Although RCI says that exchange requests fulfilled in 2008 were 94.3% during 2008 we cannot easily determine what percentage of deposits were available in 2008 but expired unused.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*That Reflects A Curious Attitude Toward Timeshares & Timesharing.*




e.bram said:


> Why blame RCI. Blame the prime weeks owners who use and rent NOT deposit.They are the culprits. Damn them.


Culprits, shmullprits -- there is nothing wrong with owners using or renting out their prime timeshare weeks.  That's mainly what they're for.  

Ditto off-season & shoulder-season timeshare weeks. 

Depositing timeshare weeks for exchange is a useful but non-essential optional extra feature.  

Looking at it otherwise is putting the cart in front of the horse -- there's nothing wrong with that, of course, other than impracticality. 

Just saying. 

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


----------



## Carolinian

Interesting!  Considering that RCI's number of exchanges reported for _Timesharing Today's_ tables was about 2.3 million for 2009, it would appear that RCI is including rentals in the numbers they give out for overall exchanges.  Maybe they figure that exchanging a timeshare week for dollars is an ''exchange''.  That would put RCI's rental figure at about 800,000 in 2008.  Given that, it would appear that in terms of real timeshare for timeshare exchanges, RCI and II are about equal.




Goofyhobbie said:


> Jason,
> 
> It may be difficult for anyone to answer your specific question. But, RCI does publish an Independent Accountant's report every year and the latest is for the calander year that ended December 31, 2008.
> 
> The Independent Accountant's report can be accessed at the RCI website when you scroll down to disclosures at the bottom of the first page before entering your Username and Password.
> 
> Once you access the disclosures you will note that the format is a pdf file.
> 
> Scroll down to page 132 to get the report.
> 
> RCI says that on December 31, 2008 it had an obligation to provide 1,710,685 interval weeks in a subsequent period and RCI confirmed 1,526,995 exchanges during 2008.
> 
> Although RCI says that exchange requests fulfilled in 2008 were 94.3% during 2008 we cannot easily determine what percentage of deposits were available in 2008 but expired unused.


----------



## MichaelColey

Not necessarily.  The way I read it, this is week exchanges in RCI Weeks.  RCI Points exchanges may be separate.


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


> Not necessarily.  The way I read it, this is week exchanges in RCI Weeks.  RCI Points exchanges may be separate.



I agree with you as to the accountant's report, but the real question is what the larger number reported in _Timesharing Today_ consists of.


----------



## skimble

I haven't been keeping up with this thread... 
When are they planning to unveil this program?  
And... considering I have a summer GPR deposit in the system, and I'm not able to see a summer GPR week for 2011 or 2012, I'm wondering if they're holding this inventory back so they can prime the system with a glut of good weeks.  Grand Pacific has always been among the first to deposit their weeks with RCI.  In fact, even in 2012, they've been bulk banking their weeks at about 1 year 11 months.  This pattern stopped for June weeks.  
(Once those weeks are unleashed in the system, there will be a lot of excess inventory of Primes... RCI is holding them now-- accumulating them.  When they introduce the program, they'll have tons of great weeks to offer-- weeks they know are 10 out of 10 on the desireability scale.  The benefit to them in doing this would be:  1.  They'd have plenty of prime weeks to offer for lower credit traders.  2.  The excess inventory would bulk up their store of rentable weeks... and they would have excess inventory.  They've been holding back primes for over a year now.  3.  This excess inventory would constantly be replenished.   In economic terms, they're bulking up their assetts in savings by holding back for a year.  Unveiling this system with a rich storehouse-- a savings account that's stocked, looks good to consumers.  It's a cycle that benefits them-- a rich savings account of prime weeks to offer... there won't be enough deposits to consume all those primes... they will benefit from prime deposits... and at the end of the month, there will be primes left over for them to rent.  And, what did it cost them... a few points off their tarnished reputation for a year-- something they can gain back once they unveil this new system with a glut of fantastic inventory.
Just a theory... hope it makes sense.


----------



## deedman

skimble, it is a good theory all right, although I can't help but to think of this quote:

"The idealist is incorrigible: if he is thrown out of his heaven he makes an ideal of his hell."

     Nietzsche, Friedrich


----------



## JDF

*For all the banter*

in this post, it's obvious that RCI can't match up to II. II has instant exchange, request first and deposit first. As far as trade value, II has had that for awhile, based on supply and demand. If you can find your resort in the getaway (rental) program you will see a rental value, using that in my own case I can trade up about 200.00 in value. Pretty simple to find "real" trade value, using II.


----------



## Mel

JDF said:


> in this post, it's obvious that RCI can't match up to II. II has instant exchange, request first and deposit first. As far as trade value, II has had that for awhile, based on supply and demand. If you can find your resort in the getaway (rental) program you will see a rental value, using that in my own case I can trade up about 200.00 in value. Pretty simple to find "real" trade value, using II.



The merits of request first have been discussed many times here - it's not all it's cracked up to be, because if you can request first, so can the person who owns the week you want to exchange into.  RCI and II have a very similar system to determine trade power.  The main difference seems to be in where they have supply.  Where II has more deposits from an area, they have more supply, and often that results in lower trade power - it's why many people post here asking where to deposit their dual-affiliated resorts.

RCI has a rental program too, but neither theirs nor II's offer a true sense of trade power.  Rentals are not the same as exchanges.  Rentals are primarily used by people who have more vacation than weeks to exchange (or want additional units for friends/family).  Demand among exchangers is not the same as demand among renters.


----------



## JDF

Mel said:


> The merits of request first have been discussed many times here - it's not all it's cracked up to be, because if you can request first, so can the person who owns the week you want to exchange into.  RCI and II have a very similar system to determine trade power.  The main difference seems to be in where they have supply.  Where II has more deposits from an area, they have more supply, and often that results in lower trade power - it's why many people post here asking where to deposit their dual-affiliated resorts.
> 
> RCI has a rental program too, but neither theirs nor II's offer a true sense of trade power.  Rentals are not the same as exchanges.  Rentals are primarily used by people who have more vacation than weeks to exchange (or want additional units for friends/family).  Demand among exchangers is not the same as demand among renters.




     Your points are well taken Mel. 

      However it seems to me that deposit first would be the worst possible exchange method. It gives the exchange company a license to steal, A crap shoot at best. Using request first, the owner of a valuable week, wishing to exchange, would not have to settle for an undesired week if an exchange cannot be made, motivating the exchange company to work on behalf of the exchanger, to earn their commission.

      With II, exchange inventory remains in the exchange pool for a period of time, the leftovers go to the rental pool, along with developer unsold inventory.( that use II as a rental agency) That pool is available for both exchange and rental, so they become one and the same (visable in both instant exchange and rentals) so reasonable valuations can be compared, with the only variable being the length of time prior to check-in. Of coarse the best exchange weeks and time periods may not reach this pool, however in a large part, due to ever increasing, developer inventory, there are some great trades in this pool. I believe this system provides for, in many if not most cases, a real sense (based on supply and demand) of the value of a week as either a trader or rental.


----------



## Walt

*Is There Any Update In What RCI is Planning?*

And when RCI will start this program?

Walt


----------



## siesta

supposed to be by the end of the year, don't hold your breath.


----------



## Carolinian

siesta said:


> supposed to be by the end of the year, don't hold your breath.



If RCI has even the slightest concern for the health of its member resorts, it will wait until after the 2011 m/f bills have gone out and been mostly paid.  Say about February or so.  Otherwise this numbers racket is going to give a lot of owners who exchange a severe case of heartburn right at the time they get their m/f bill.  I suspect that will trigger a tsunami of bailouts, all thanks to RCI and its timing.  But then who knows their full agenda.  That might be a calculated part of a plan, or it may just be stupidity.

The one thing I am still hearing is that some resorts have been briefed at various levels while others haven't been told a thing about this scheme.  That is simply not an honest way of doing business, but it probably foreshadows which resorts are going to get hosed in this numbers racket.


----------



## MichaelColey

I got the email today announcing the upcoming changes (which included a link to http://app.rci.com/landing/InsideRCI/memenhancements/).  With this announcement, I suspect that it's coming sooner rather than later.

I'm growing to like it better.  I still think it'll make it harder to get into the best resorts, since everyone will now have access to them.  If a 2BR DVC unit has a trading value of 30 and an average resort has a 15, I can see a lot of people trading two "15s" to get into a 30.  I know I'll be looking for trades up rather than down.

I know we'll all benefit in one way, in that we get "change" back from our exchanges if it wasn't an even trade.  That means, among other things, that we might be able to get several last minute exchanges out of a moderate trader.

As with any rules change, those who are most knowledgable and flexible will still get the most benefit.  The dynamics will change, but there will still be inefficiencies that will allow us to maximize our exchanges.


----------



## kasteer

MichaelColey said:


> I got the email today announcing the upcoming changes (which included a link to http://app.rci.com/landing/InsideRCI/memenhancements/).   I know I'll be looking for trades up rather than down.



My parents own a high point value TS in OBX (they live an hour from there and know people with houses there) and NEVER use it.  They get about 4 vacations a year with their points.  but they're retired and travel year round (off season too) and stay in 1 or 2 bdrm units.  People in this situation, but with weeks, will be able to trade 'down' and get more vacations as well.

In the 'new' point system down grading will have a benefit.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Just Another Nudge Toward All Points -- Not That There's Anything Wrong With That.*




MichaelColey said:


> I know we'll all benefit in one way, in that we get "change" back from our exchanges if it wasn't an even trade.  That means, among other things, that we might be able to get several last minute exchanges out of a moderate trader.
> 
> As with any rules change, those who are most knowledgable and flexible will still get the most benefit.  The dynamics will change, but there will still be inefficiencies that will allow us to maximize our exchanges.


If I get change back which won't pull anything that I want to exchange into, then my benefit from the new _Pointe Lite_ system is only theoretical & not practical. 

But if I am allowed to do PFD with the fractional-unit value I receive as change back -- i.e., if the new _Points Lite_ system actually is some version of _Super Points_ that can interact with old-fashioned RCI Points -- then I really am getting value back when I trade my fancypants high-season timeshare for somebody else's humble off-season unit.  

So far as I am aware, however, there has been no official mention of doing PFD with any _Points Lite_ change back. 

So it goes. 

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


----------



## kasteer

Anyone know how long we will be able to retain left over points?  In other words how long until they expire?


----------



## MichaelColey

kasteer said:


> Anyone know how long we will be able to retain left over points? In other words how long until they expire?


The FAQ says that the left over points are valid as long as the original deposit was. For instance, if you deposit a Jun-2011 week, it's good from Jun-2010 through Jun-2013. If you exchange it and get credit back, that credit is also good through Jun-2013.


----------



## rickandcindy23

I hope the re-evaluation of trading power that happened a while back is going to stick for the new system.  I also wonder if they realized they had undervalued many, many weeks that are prime summer in great locations, when they did their dirty work on 5/30/2009.  

I keep waiting for this new system's rollout, and if it's bad for us, then we have alternatives for our weeks.


----------



## bnoble

> If I get change back which won't pull anything that I want to exchange into


It's combinable with your other deposits.  (Just like points).



> ll think it'll make it harder to get into the best resorts, since everyone will now have access to them. If a 2BR DVC unit has a trading value of 30 and an average resort has a 15, I can see a lot of people trading two "15s" to get into a 30. I know I'll be looking for trades up rather than down.


You need to look at the bigger picture.  Sure, you might always be willing to trade up.  But, other folks might not---especially because, now, some other resorts might well be (check that, *will*) be cheaper.  For example, today if you have a deposit that sees a DVC unit and one at Vistana, you'd obviously take DVC, because it's "better".  But, if the DVC unit cost 45 "credits" but Vistana only cost 30, you might decide to go with Vistana and use the other 15 for some other vacation.  So, just as more people will be able to "reach up", more people might be willing to "slide down"---now there is incentive.

The same thing will happen with small families of 3 or 4 people.  Today, they take the 2BR without even thinking twice.  Costs the same either way.  But, if the 1BR costs less, maybe they'll decide to go with the smaller unit to save a few credits.

Finally, there will be some folks who don't want to combine to "reach up", because their cost-per-credit is too high.  Sure, you can combine two (or, more likely, three) blue weeks to make that exchange, but if it is three, now you're looking at $2100ish in MFs for that trade, which isn't such a great deal---and in some cases an owner will rent for less.


----------



## kasteer

bnoble said:


> It's combinable with your other deposits.  (Just like points).
> 
> 
> You need to look at the bigger picture.  Sure, you might always be willing to trade up.  But, other folks might not---especially because, now, some other resorts might well be (check that, *will*) be cheaper.  For example, today if you have a deposit that sees a DVC unit and one at Vistana, you'd obviously take DVC, because it's "better".  But, if the DVC unit cost 45 "credits" but Vistana only cost 30, you might decide to go with Vistana and use the other 15 for some other vacation.  So, just as more people will be able to "reach up", more people might be willing to "slide down"---now there is incentive.
> 
> The same thing will happen with small families of 3 or 4 people.  Today, they take the 2BR without even thinking twice.  Costs the same either way.  But, if the 1BR costs less, maybe they'll decide to go with the smaller unit to save a few credits.
> 
> Finally, there will be some folks who don't want to combine to "reach up", because their cost-per-credit is too high.  Sure, you can combine two (or, more likely, three) blue weeks to make that exchange, but if it is three, now you're looking at $2100ish in MFs for that trade, which isn't such a great deal---and in some cases an owner will rent for less.



GREAT ANALYSIS!


----------



## bnoble

One more point: if you read the link that Michael posted *very* carefully, it does *not* say you can combine two or more *deposits*, only that you can combine *a leftover credit* with *a deposit*.  It's possible that the example isn't expansive, but...


----------



## MichaelColey

bnoble said:


> One more point: if you read the link that Michael posted *very* carefully, it does *not* say you can combine two or more *deposits*, only that you can combine *a leftover credit* with *a deposit*. It's possible that the example isn't expansive, but...


You're right! And if it works that way, I think that'll make it even better as it'll prevent major trades up. A lot of what we're thinking is speculation until we can see how it actually works.

The more I think about it, I think you're right about someone combining several blue weeks to grab a good week. I think I have a pretty incredible TP/MF$ ratio on my timeshares (for instance, the 2BR side of one of my $500ish [for both sides] MF lockouts can see 2BR DVC units ... and my CMV UDI should be able to deposit 10+ weeks at under $150 per week), but I suspect that the overwhelming majority of owners don't, so this would be much less appealing to them.

Another factor: I think RCI will do everything they can to incentivize people to trade down, as they would book MULTIPLE exchanges from each deposit, and RCI makes money off of exchanges.


----------



## siesta

*"The more I think about it, I think you're right about someone combining several blue weeks to grab a good week" MichaelColey*
I don't know if that will matter for wyndham owners. For example if the exchange I want will require 154k of my wyndham points, why would it matter if I deposit two 77k deposits (or any other number of deposits, 28k for blue studious) or a 154k 2 bedroom.

crude example:if 10 is the required number, what does it matter to RCI if I deposit my points as 2+2+2+2+2, or 5+5, or any other combination you can think of.

I have a feeling this system update will be very beneficial to wyndham point owners, because of the way our generic deposits are calculated. Call me optimistic.


----------



## bnoble

> And if it works that way, I think that'll make it even better as it'll prevent major trades up


Except that it doesn't take much imagination to figure out how to get around it.



> because of the way our generic deposits are calculated.


I think there is a chance of that, as well.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

MichaelColey said:


> Another factor: I think RCI will do everything they can to incentivize people to trade down, as they would book MULTIPLE exchanges from each deposit, and RCI makes money off of exchanges.



There are cynics who might say that is precisely the point. 

Under the old systems,  a practical limit on moving the best quality units into the rental pool is that RCI has to give the depositors of those weeks reasonable value in exchange or the owners stop depositing those weeks.  

Now, if they divert top quality weeks to the rental pool, the depositors of those weeks can get multiple lesser weeks, which means more value to those depositors. 

Of course this reduces the supply of directly equal exchanges for depositors in the lower tiers, which is addressed by letting theose depositors to obtain multiple weeks from lower tiers yet.  

And so on, all the way to the bottom of the pool.

Two things happen.  First is RCI generates more exchange fees.  Second is that it minimizes the number of lower quality weeks that RCI takes in and the get unused.


----------



## rickandcindy23

I wonder if this will be easy to "see" and figure out, or if it will be difficult.  

I only have RCI Points to compare the value of my weeks, and a week at a SC resort is very high in RCI Points, so does that mean those weeks will have high points in the new system?  One would assume, or maybe RCI will adjust values of RCI Points and PFD at the same time they roll this out and values will go down.  

Maybe I will have to give away less of our weeks, if I am suddenly going to be able to combine weeks to get something we really want.


----------



## Carolinian

The problem that is going to hit is that exchange values will be altered and this is where owners are going to hit the ceiling.

Take the overbuilt areas.  Is RCI really going to set their values where the market - supply and demand - say they should be, and where RCI members are used to their values being?  I doubt it because then the developers there would go ballistic.  So RCI will pad those values to keep the developers happy (one of the big evils of a published value system).  However, the owners of off season weeks elsewhere, which have a similar supply / demand curve as those overbuilt areas and have been used to trading in easily, will suddenly find arbitrary fixed numbers that no longer allow them to do that.  They will decide, quite correctly, that they have been screwed.

Then there are the people with pink weeks in Gold Crown resorts in areas with a so-so supply / demand curve.  These people are going to get a comeupance.  They have thought they were Red Gold Crown, top of the heap, as their saleman told them, and will find out otherwise.

I suspect that, as with RCI Points, there will be far too much overaveraging with too many instances of similar values given for dissimilar weeks.  If you are at the low end of one of those value blocks, it is great, but if you are at the high end, you are screwed.  

It looks like it will be trial and error with the numbers, though, so that is something that online groups like TUG should compile to help members.   Otherwise is it a bit of a crapshoot for anyone to try out the system.

The idea of people using several low value weeks to get one high value week is not going to fly because that invovles multiple m/f's, and with RCI's rentals, it will be easier just to rent the better week than bunching up the m/f's.

This whole scheme is going to be a train wreck for HOA's with upset members who exchange bailing out.


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> The problem that is going to hit is that exchange values will be altered...


I don't read it that way at all.  In fact, they specifically say "The trading power of your deposit isn’t changing!"

The way I understand it, they're making the existing trading value visible and letting you get change back to apply to another exchange.


----------



## Dave599

MichaelColey said:


> I don't read it that way at all.  In fact, they specifically say "The trading power of your deposit isn’t changing!"
> 
> The way I understand it, they're making the existing trading value visible and letting you get change back to apply to another exchange.



Your right Michael, trading power is not changing you will just be able to see it, it is going to have a profound effect in a number of ways...........

The first thing will be the huge period of whining and complaining from people who bought junk now able to see they bought junk, a lot may leave rci because there weeks have no value in rci or they will be tearing the resorts a new one for selling them a bill of goods.....

BTW I see it on here all the time "I own a gold crown at x resort" tier, gold crown silver crown etc has NOTHING to do with trading value its not used in the trading value calculation. Now before the "pickers of bones" start up it can in a round about way affect trading value in that gold crowns can in general have a higher demand so it can effect the supply/demand curve but it is not used directly.

members who have never been able to get ny or florida keys etc will now be able to if they want to combine 2 20 value weeks to get the 40 they need for Manhattan club

It should end all the complaining of "I never get anything I want" because you will be able to see you don't get it because you bought junk or you deposit so late you loose 2/3rds of your trading power.

The thousands if not tens of thousands of members who try to rent there weeks (gee wonder why there are not as many deposits as there was 10 years ago) will have to decide do I try and rent it until a month before C/I and end up with a trading value of 5 if it doesn't rent or do I deposit 9 months out and get a trading value of 20 or 30........ Many many people shoot themselves in the foot holding out for that rental that never happens.

Keep in mind that rci is a business, its not a co=op or non-profit so like any business there goal is to leave you with as little money in your wallet as possible.....so don't think for a second you will be able to combine 2 20 value weeks to make a 40 without paying a fee for that service, its all about the profits for the shareholders and million dollar suits......


Dave


----------



## timeos2

*Taking the information to all not just those who "got it" in the past*



MichaelColey said:


> I don't read it that way at all.  In fact, they specifically say "The trading power of your deposit isn’t changing!"
> 
> The way I understand it, they're making the existing trading value visible and letting you get change back to apply to another exchange.



Yes, it will just be disclosure of the already existing, hidden (how was that benefiting anyone except the developers who were hiding the REAL value or lack of it behind the secrecy?) values your weeks have now. If it isn't what you were led to believe then that is more proof that the old, secret system was the sham not the system that reveals values used. 

The old timers want the secrets left hidden to maximize their values as they have figured it out while the majority are in the dark. Now all will know and can make better decisions on an even playing field - they lose that long standing edge. A tough pill for them but a plus for the vast majority. They aren't losing anything but gaining knowledge they never had before.


----------



## Carolinian

How many times has RCI claimed that they have not touched trading power, and Tuggers can see for themselves that they had?????  RCI is proven to speak with a forked tongue.  Of course they are going to claim that.  The real test will be to see if things that we know can easily trade into certain places, particularly overbuilt areas, now can still do that after RCI casts its magic spell.

The fact that they have been advising some resorts on their new numbers ahead of time but not others is NOT a sign that this program is on the up and up.  And that has been happening on both sides of the Atlantic.




MichaelColey said:


> I don't read it that way at all.  In fact, they specifically say "The trading power of your deposit isn’t changing!"
> 
> The way I understand it, they're making the existing trading value visible and letting you get change back to apply to another exchange.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Michael doesn't know about RCI's wicked past like we do.  He is a brand new timeshare owner, but he is a quick learner and figures things out as fast as Boca did, way back when.  

We all know that RCI says one thing and does quite another.   

After 5/30/2009, when my trading power (North Carolina and Colorado summer weeks) went from top tier to probably tier four out of the six new levels of trading power, all of the guides told me that my trading power didn't change.  *They bold-faced lied to me.*  I was sick to death of hearing their mantra; they were saying what they were told to say by the higher-ups in RCI.  

BUT I fought and fought and wrote letters to everyone I could, and finally it was acknowledged by Carole Ablett that 200K deposited weeks were re-evaluated and trading power was reduced for most of them.  I have her email stating that, and now when RCI spews their garbage, I can say, "Let me forward you an email from Carole Ablett, telling me I was right before..."  

I am afraid of anything RCI does to weeks' owners.   This new system is not going to be impressive, I guarantee it.  It will benefit RCI.   




Carolinian said:


> How many times has RCI claimed that they have not touched trading power, and Tuggers can see for themselves that they had?????  RCI is proven to speak with a forked tongue.  Of course they are going to claim that.  The real test will be to see if things that we know can easily trade into certain places, particularly overbuilt areas, now can still do that after RCI casts its magic spell.
> 
> The fact that they have been advising some resorts on their new numbers ahead of time but not others is NOT a sign that this program is on the up and up.  And that has been happening on both sides of the Atlantic.


----------



## bankr63

timeos2 said:


> *(March 27,2010)*
> I have recently heard from two different RCI sources that, as part of the fallout from the ill-fated class action suit, the RCI Weeks system is going to undergo a major and unprecedented change.  The long secret trade value is coming out from the shadows and will be used front and center as the new means for facilitating trades.
> 
> The announcement should occur in 4-8 weeks. That should be enough to get the conversation rolling for now.



I have been reading this thread on and off since it first posted.  At that time, the expected announcement was 4-8 weeks (May/June?)  Here we are in September, half a year later, and none the wiser.  If this is REALLY going to happen? Does anyone have better intel as to when that might be?


----------



## timeos2

*Still 2010 I hear*



bankr63 said:


> I have been reading this thread on and off since it first posted.  At that time, the expected announcement was 4-8 weeks (May/June?)  Here we are in September, half a year later, and none the wiser.  If this is REALLY going to happen? Does anyone have better intel as to when that might be?



Before year end 2010 is all we've heard. It did sound like it would happen quicker earlier this year but, like most things, seems to have been delayed for awhile. Now they appear to be back on track.


----------



## bnoble

> of the guides told me that my trading power didn't change. They bold-faced lied to me.


Perhaps more accurately, they told you what they "knew".  Remember, most of these guides are being paid minimum wage (or less in foreign offices) and don't know 10% of what the average TUGger does about how things work.



> At that time, the expected announcement was 4-8 weeks (May/June?) Here we are in September, half a year later, and none the wiser.


If you scroll back a bit, you'll see that at least one RCI member has received a "preview" of how the system will work, via a publicly-accessible web link.


----------



## Dave599

timeos2 said:


> Before year end 2010 is all we've heard. It did sound like it would happen quicker earlier this year but, like most things, seems to have been delayed for awhile. Now they appear to be back on track.



Early to mid November from my friend at rci however nothing is carved in stone........


----------



## rickandcindy23

Sounds like I need to get my exchanges lined up for next year very soon.  I need to take advantage of the opportunities while I can.  I am so disappointed at how things are changing again.  I just get used to things one way, adjust to it, and then they go and change things again.


----------



## taffy19

e.bram said:


> Why blame RCI. Blame the prime weeks owners who use and rent NOT deposit.They are the culprits. Damn them.


Pardon me but some people buy for use mainly because they like the resort and/or location and date in case they bought a fixed week too. People, who buy for use mainly are the most content timeshare owners unless the developers keep on changing their program too which is happening right now with the Marriott. 

If exchanging is becoming harder to do with II (in Marriott's case) then we need to have another alternative available so that may be renting or do a direct exchange or try another independent exchange company.  Everyone has to do what is best for them to make timesharing work.  JMHO.


----------



## Jennie

Dave599 said:


> ...its all about the profits for the shareholders and million dollar suits......Dave



One problem as I see it is that RCI, like most huge corporations, consists of  many different departments headed by "suits" who want to brag about how much revenue their division has brought in this year (or quarter). But it is often at the expense of future earnings. In other words, many of their policies are profitable in the short term but ultimately cannibalize future earnings. By then the "suits" will have sailed off on their golden parachutes, leaving a pile of rubble behind.

In earlier years I bought timeshare weeks that were considered to be excellent traders. And they were--for awhile. But then RCI began skimming off the best deposited  weeks and renting them to the general public at prices below what the owner was paying in maintenance fees and Special Assessments. The number and quantity of desirable weeks available for exchange plummeted. 

Once I realized this was happening (despite RCI's bald-faced lying about it), I began purchasing weeks at resorts where I want to vacation each year--5 back-to-back weeks in Ft. Lauderdale (Jan.-March) and 3 on Cape Cod in August. They are all 2 bedroom units; several are lock-offs. I know many other people who have done the same thing. These are weeks that will never be deposited with RCI. The owners use them, or rent them for big bucks. The Internet makes it easy to accomplish. 

RCI keeps trying to come up with new ideas to attract or retain members. But it is ultimately doomed to fail.  They should  settle for a smaller, but decent and consistent profit, providing a fair, easy to understand, easy to use exchange system.


----------



## taffy19

timeos2 said:


> Yes, it will just be disclosure of the already existing, hidden (how was that benefiting anyone except the developers who were hiding the REAL value or lack of it behind the secrecy?) values your weeks have now. If it isn't what you were led to believe then that is more proof that the old, secret system was the sham not the system that reveals values used.
> 
> The old timers want the secrets left hidden to maximize their values as they have figured it out while the majority are in the dark. Now all will know and can make better decisions on an even playing field - they lose that long standing edge. A tough pill for them but a plus for the vast majority. They aren't losing anything but gaining knowledge they never had before.


I believe that this thread is about RCI making changes in the exchange program for weeks rather than for points.  It may be a change for the better for most people who are not as up to date as most TUGgers are here.

I have a question for someone I know who is in RCI points now but wants to go back to weeks. I read somewhere today that you can change this once every three years but how do you find the exact date when to make the change back to weeks? 

Since we hardly ever exchange, I don't know much about either system and was meaning to ask this for quite awhile. TIA for your reply.


----------



## rickandcindy23

iconnections said:


> I believe that this thread is about RCI making changes in the exchange program for weeks rather than for points.  It may be a change for the better for most people who are not as up to date as most TUGgers are here.
> 
> I have a question for someone I know who is in RCI points now but wants to go back to weeks. I read somewhere today that you can change this once every three years but how do you find the exact date when to make the change back to weeks?
> 
> Since we hardly ever exchange, I don't know much about either system and was meaning to ask this for quite awhile. TIA for your reply.



Emmy, I can help with your RCI Points questions for your friend.  I know that if you don't renew your membership with RCI Points, your week will now be a week, but you have to renew your weeks account, if you want to continue in RCI weeks (but why would you).  I almost had this happen to me accidentally, actually.  You are renewing for 3 years, and if your membership gets close to the end date of your use-year, that would be when your annual fee would be due.  Don't pay it, and your membership is over.  

I love RCI points and wonder why your friend doesn't?


----------



## taffy19

rickandcindy23 said:


> Emmy, I can help with your RCI Points questions for your friend. I know that if you don't renew your membership with RCI Points, your week will now be a week, but you have to renew your weeks account, if you want to continue in RCI weeks (but why would you). I almost had this happen to me accidentally, actually. You are renewing for 3 years, and if your membership gets close to the end date of your use-year, that would be when your annual fee would be due. Don't pay it, and your membership is over.
> 
> I love RCI points and wonder why your friend doesn't?


Cindy, there is a valid reason for that.  I will call you because I want to find out some more about it.  Thank you.


----------



## Dave599

Jennie said:


> One problem as I see it is that RCI, like most huge corporations, consists of  many different departments headed by "suits" who want to brag about how much revenue their division has brought in this year (or quarter). But it is often at the expense of future earnings. In other words, many of their policies are profitable in the short term but ultimately cannibalize future earnings. By then the "suits" will have sailed off on their golden parachutes, leaving a pile of rubble behind.
> 
> In earlier years I bought timeshare weeks that were considered to be excellent traders. And they were--for awhile. But then RCI began skimming off the best deposited  weeks and renting them to the general public at prices below what the owner was paying in maintenance fees and Special Assessments. The number and quantity of desirable weeks available for exchange plummeted.
> 
> Once I realized this was happening (despite RCI's bald-faced lying about it), I began purchasing weeks at resorts where I want to vacation each year--5 back-to-back weeks in Ft. Lauderdale (Jan.-March) and 3 on Cape Cod in August. They are all 2 bedroom units; several are lock-offs. I know many other people who have done the same thing. These are weeks that will never be deposited with RCI. The owners use them, or rent them for big bucks. The Internet makes it easy to accomplish.
> 
> RCI keeps trying to come up with new ideas to attract or retain members. But it is ultimately doomed to fail.  They should  settle for a smaller, but decent and consistent profit, providing a fair, easy to understand, easy to use exchange system.



I will not for a second deny that rci moves some quantity of deposited weeks into rental, they have done so in the past, do so now, and will continue to do so in the future.....However I would hazard a guess that rci's part in the rental loss of deposits is maybe 10%, 90% is the members themselves renting there units you said above if you don't use them "you rent them for big bucks" you don't think that has a profound impact on whats available to trade...........and all you have to do is look on ebay, Kijiji, craigslist, this board, redweek or and of the thousands of boards like them to see the volume of units that are up for rental by there owners those are all weeks that are not getting deposited for trade. No one will deny your right to rent your units but STOP COMPLAINING THAT THERE ARE NO UNITS AVAILABLE TO TRADE INTO in one breath and RENT YOUR UNITS IN THE NEXT. I realize rci is a convenient target its never easy to see the face of the person at fault when you look in a mirror but that's the person who has taken most of the weeks out of the trade pool not rci by a long shot.........

Dave


----------



## rickandcindy23

Dave599 said:


> I will not for a second deny that rci moves some quantity of deposited weeks into rental, they have done so in the past, do so now, and will continue to do so in the future.....However I would hazard a guess that rci's part in the rental loss of deposits is maybe 10%, 90% is the members themselves renting there units you said above if you don't use them "you rent them for big bucks" you don't think that has a profound impact on whats available to trade...........and all you have to do is look on ebay, Kijiji, craigslist, this board, redweek or and of the thousands of boards like them to see the volume of units that are up for rental by there owners those are all weeks that are not getting deposited for trade. No one will deny your right to rent your units but STOP COMPLAINING THAT THERE ARE NO UNITS AVAILABLE TO TRADE INTO in one breath and RENT YOUR UNITS IN THE NEXT. I realize rci is a convenient target its never easy to see the face of the person at fault when you look in a mirror but that's the person who has taken most of the weeks out of the trade pool not rci by a long shot.........
> 
> Dave



I am trying to decipher what you are saying.  It's very difficult to read your paragraph.  I think you need some commas and periods in there somewhere.    You are saying we should just give RCI weeks and not rent what we own, or don't complain that RCI rents OUR weeks, when we deposit them?  

It should be against the law for RCI to rent what WE own, because they are supposed to be an exchange company.

Simply compare Extra  acations with exchange inventory and see things from a totally different perspective.  

And here is some news for all of those who think II is just as guilty: I can rent from II, should I choose, and much of their inventory is really cheap, admittedly, but 90% of what they rent, I can pull with my weeks.  I cannot pull everything in Getaways with every week, because there are trading power issues with some of my weeks, and sometimes rental inventory is given to II through the resort group, for rental purposes only.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Timeshare Rentals By Owners = OK.  Timeshare Rentals By RCI = Not So Much.*




rickandcindy23 said:


> It should be against the law for RCI to rent what WE own, because they are supposed to be an exchange company.


I would hate to see the law brought into it.  Law enforcement agencies are stretched thin already & additional growth in their jurisdiction for something as trivial overall as timeshares seems questionable at best.  Plus, if we don't want RCI renting out our timeshares to the general world of people who don't own timeshares, all we have to do is quit banking our timeshares with RCI.  

Even so, there is a distinct aroma of _Bait & Switch_ any time RCI rents out timeshares that were banked for exchange.  Sure, the fine print says RCI can do whatever it wants with deposited weeks, but the fact remains that timeshare owners overwhelmingly view RCI as a timeshare exchange organization & thus consider it dirty pool when RCI rents out _el primo_ timeshare weeks to the general world while offering exchanges into more of the timeshare dogs & cats to the loyal, dues-paying & fee-paying members of RCI.  

Might not be illegal, but is sure seems unfair, no ? 

Meanwhile, despite the dim view timeshare owners take of RCI renting out banked weeks, I don't see anything wrong with whatever the deed-buying, maintenance-fee-paying timeshare owners choose to do with their own paid-for timeshare weeks -- deposit for exchange, check in themselves, rent'm out, give'm away to family & friends, etc.  Anything goes. 

The original expectation is that the timeshares which individual owners pay for are to be used any way the owners care to use'm.  By contrast, people's expectation of RCI is that timeshares banked for exchange will be available for exchange, period.  Skimming the cream just doesn't sit right.  It might be tolerated if RCI rental income subsidized members' straight exchanges, so that RCI members got the benefit of minimal exchange fees & token annual dues instead of facing fees & dues that only go _up-up-up_. 

Where RCI stumbled was getting caught at it.  That is, if they kept the cream-skimming down to imperceptible levels, too few of us regular walking-around timeshare owners would notice or care -- too few, that is, to generate much fuss.  When the RCI biz plan led to more & more cream-skimming, that's when the feathers hit the fan.  

What's badly needed is a non-profit or not-for-profit timeshare exchange agency run along the lines of a credit union -- that is, in the interests of members rather than for the benefit of the corporate bottom line.   It would not need to reinvent the wheel & in fact could operate pretty much the way RCI operates today, except without skimming the cream by renting out prime banked weeks to the general public.  I am not holding my breath waiting for that development. 

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


----------



## rickandcindy23

> Where RCI stumbled was getting caught at it. That is, if they kept the cream-skimming down to imperceptible levels, too few of us regular walking-around timeshare owners would notice or care -- too few, that is, to generate much fuss. When the RCI biz plan led to more & more cream-skimming, that's when the feathers hit the fan.



Very true, and that is why no one complains about II.  I hardly ever see anyone on TUG saying that II is renting something they really want for exchange.  They operate UNDER the radar; they aren't blatantly showing rental inventory along with exchange inventory in searches.  

When I search Hawaii with my best traders, most days there are < 25 resorts available, < 500 weeks.  When I search Extra Vacations and Exchange together, there are usually 36 resorts and 1,000's of weeks.  

RCI is saying to me: "Nanny, nanny, boo, boo, we have weeks you cannot have."  

You are right about making it illegal.  I don't think the law should be brought into it.  I don't believe in over-regulation of anything.  So that really isn't my opinion, but it gripes me that RCI automatically gets to do anything with our weeks, as though they hold the deeds.


----------



## "Roger"

I don't find it that difficult to understand what Dave is saying.  

While admitting that RCI does do rentals, he is also saying that their is a lot of scapegoating going on.  

It is hard to find a thread on TUG where, as soon as someone mentions that they are having difficulty getting a trade, someone chimes in "RCI must have rented what you are looking for."  Is that really the only thing that is going on?  No one lacks trading power? Summer beach weeks haven't always been hard to get?  And ... as Dave mentions, with the advent of the Internet, it has become very easy for people to rent their own units.  Are we saying that when growing numbers of people decide that they can easily rent via the Internet, this has no impact on availability?  (Yes, one poster is going to say that the Internet has had no impact on timesharing.  I don't buy that for a moment.)

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

I might add another factor that has impacted trading patterns.  Online trading.  At first, when only a small number of people used it and saw what was sitting untaken, it was a real bonanza.  On the other hand, when online trading began to really take hold, and lots of people begin to shop around, people begin to notice that the better units were getting harder and harder to get. More and more people were searching around for the best trade they could get as opposed to just asking RCI for a possible trade at some one location.  Guess what happens when lots of people start shopping and see that they can trade for something they did not imagine was available?  The really good trades disappear faster and faster.

As an aside, when I first mentioned this, I was told - in a very condenscening fashion, I might add - that the growing popularity of online trading had no impact on the availability of good units - it was because Points owners were raiding the Weeks inventory. At that time, about one-half of one percent of RCI owners had Points units, but online trading was approaching ten percent - a milestone where the ordinary Joe was beginning to participate in shopping around. But - as Dave mentioned - people don't want to look in the mirror and admit that the practices that they themselves participate in might be having some sort of overall negative impact.  Better to scapegoat.  So there were mobs (I think that is the appropriate word) of TUGGERs who were willing to accept that the good trades were disappearing from the online board because Points (one half on one percent) was raiding Weeks. I am sorry.  I believed and still believe that when just a few people were knowledgeable enough to shop around for the best unit available via online trading, they, not surprisingly, found good units sitting there.  When the number of shoppers increased, the good units got taken faster. Rather than look in the mirror, find a scapegoat.


----------



## Dave599

rickandcindy23 said:


> I am trying to decipher what you are saying.  It's very difficult to read your paragraph.  I think you need some commas and periods in there somewhere.



I just re-read my post, there seems to be lots of commas, periods etc in the post, maybe you were up late last night and had to many beers and were not firing on all brain cells this morning..... 



rickandcindy23 said:


> You are saying we should just give RCI weeks and not rent what we own, or don't complain that RCI rents OUR weeks, when we deposit them?



No this is NOT what I am saying, what I am saying is **** rent if you choose, but don't complain there are no deposits,  when you look at the volume of rentals out there by members it far out weighs anything rci has done and had a far greater impact to the deposit pool then anything rci is doing.....



rickandcindy23 said:


> It should be against the law for RCI to rent what WE own, because they are supposed to be an exchange company.



I won't comment to this its to childish, and naive



rickandcindy23 said:


> Simply compare Extra  acations with exchange inventory and see things from a totally different perspective.



I have posted on this before, maybe you didn't read the post, your analysis is inaccurate, I can see where someone with a locked opinion would not want to see the reality. Simply comparing EV's and exchanges does NOT give a clear picture of where the ev's came from. This is because on the website ALL ev's are grouped together as rentals when in fact they come from two different groupings You can only go by what you see and you assume (making and ass of you and me) this is what it is......I challenge you to open your mind and test your theory..... 

Call the call center

tell the agent you want to look at extra vacations to a generally high demand area where there is usually very little availability (Florida keys, Florida gulf coast, Hawaii where ever, for what ever date, doesn't have to be a holiday week, what ever floats your boat 

As the agent lists what is available ask her/him is it a "H" tagged week or an "R" tagged week, I will bet almost all of them will be H tagged weeks, which means they come to rci from the resorts, via an owner request to rent there unit, (and some other 3rd parties) via the holiday rental network and are once again MEMBERS putting there units in for rental or developers putting in units NOT rci using members deposits.If its an R week then it likely came from a member deposit, a member using there deposit for something else (like a cruise) etc. 

I do not deny rci rents some member deposited units, its the scale some of the RCI Haters on here that would have you believe that I find insulting to anyone who has more then 2 active brain cells.....

Dave


----------



## AwayWeGo

*You Are Correct, Sir.*




Dave599 said:


> I do not deny rci rents some member deposited units, its the scale some of the RCI Haters on here that would have you believe that I find insulting to anyone who has more then 2 active brain cells.


You typed a mouthful there.  

The thing is, though, that some of the haters out there are distinguished & otherwise knowledgeable TUG-BBS participants with such strong & deep-seated feelings on the subject that simply to mention what it says in the fine print of RCI's terms & conditions for timeshare deposits is to get yourself lumped willy-nilly into the _RCI Can Do No Wrong_ crowd.  

As for us, we're basically OK with RCI, flaws & all, otherwise we wouldn't keep using it -- even though we'd like RCI better if its fees & dues were lower & if fewer of its _el primo_ deposits got shunted off to the rental market.  

One RCI feature we specially like is _Raiding The Weeks Inventory_ via RCI Points, particularly _Instant Exchange_ for no more than 9*,*000 points + exchange fee.  Never mind that the _Instant Exchange_ offerings are mostly the off-season dogs & cats.  And pay no attention to the fact that points raids made using points from PFD aren't so much actual _Weeks Inventory Raids_ as they are straight-weeks reservations that happened to take a procedural detour into & then back out of the points system.  Some raid. 

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


----------



## rickandcindy23

Dave599 said:


> I just re-read my post, there seems to be lots of commas, periods etc in the post, maybe you were up late last night and had to many beers and were not firing on all brain cells this morning..... Yes, well I don't drink. My brain cells are working just fine, too.
> 
> 
> No this is NOT what I am saying, what I am saying is **** rent if you choose, but don't complain there are no deposits,  when you look at the volume of rentals out there by members it far out weighs anything rci has done and had a far greater impact to the deposit pool then anything rci is doing.....
> 
> 
> 
> I won't comment to this its to childish, and naive  Naive, maybe, and I did say that I didn't think RCI should be regulated by laws in a later post.
> 
> 
> I have posted on this before, maybe you didn't read the post, Maybe not, because I haven't read all of your posts. your analysis is inaccurate, I can see where someone with a locked opinion (definitely describes me) would not want to see the reality. Simply comparing EV's and exchanges does NOT give a clear picture of where the ev's came from. This is because on the website ALL ev's are grouped together as rentals when in fact they come from two different groupings You can only go by what you see and you assume (making and ass of you and me) this is what it is......I challenge you to open your mind and test your theory.....
> 
> Call the call center  No thanks. I don't call when I don't have to call, because frankly I find the RCI guides to be a mixed bag of knowledgeable/ nice, and some who are completely the opposite of those two things.
> 
> tell the agent you want to look at extra vacations to a generally high demand area where there is usually very little availability (Florida keys, Florida gulf coast, Hawaii where ever, for what ever date, doesn't have to be a holiday week, what ever floats your boat
> 
> As the agent lists what is available ask her/him is it a "H" tagged week or an "R" tagged week, I will bet almost all of them will be H tagged weeks, which means they come to rci from the resorts, via an owner request to rent there unit, (and some other 3rd parties) via the holiday rental network and are once again MEMBERS putting there units in for rental or developers putting in units NOT rci using members deposits.If its an R week then it likely came from a member deposit, a member using there deposit for something else (like a cruise) etc. (I said resorts rent weeks through RCI earlier in another post on this thead.)
> I do not deny rci rents some member deposited units, its the scale some of the RCI Haters on here that would have you believe that I find insulting to anyone who has more then 2 active brain cells..... (I think the TUG posters here who have experienced RCI service and found it both lacking and insulting have more than two brain cells.)
> Dave



I am here to post what I know and my experiences with RCI and II.  I also share my opinions about my own resorts and so much more, but it is all my opinions.  I am not here to offend anyone and don't think many people would peg me as stupid.  Apparently that is your opinion of me, and anyone else who doesn't love RCI.  I love the exchanging game and continue to play, but it's definitely 180 degrees different from 25 years ago with RCI.  RCI has become the shadow of its former self.  I loved old RCI and miss it.  

Roger, you know I respect your opinions.


----------



## Carolinian

rickandcindy23 said:


> Sounds like I need to get my exchanges lined up for next year very soon.  I need to take advantage of the opportunities while I can.  I am so disappointed at how things are changing again.  I just get used to things one way, adjust to it, and then they go and change things again.



For some time, I have been only giving RCI one week at a time.  When this new scheme first reared its ugly head, I started looking for an exchange so I would have nothing at risk when it hit.  Fortunately, I found a decent one.


----------



## Carolinian

Well, since he showed up here, Dave has been a very consistent and tenacious defender of all things RCI.  He alludes to a ''friend'' who works in the main RCI headquarters as the source of his inside ''knowledge'' of many things at RCI.

Personally, I much prefered our old Tugger friend Bootleg, who we know for a fact was inside RCI, and while he defended such things there as he felt comfortble in defending in RCI's policies, also confirmed what we all suspected on their rentals of exchange deposits to the generally public.  Bootleg's ultimare loyalty was to timesharing itself and I valued his insights for that.

I also valued Anon over at TimeshareTalk, another bona fide RCI insider who revealed a lot of the scams going on with our exchange deposits.





"Roger" said:


> I don't find it that difficult to understand what Dave is saying.
> 
> While admitting that RCI does do rentals, he is also saying that their is a lot of scapegoating going on.
> 
> It is hard to find a thread on TUG where, as soon as someone mentions that they are having difficulty getting a trade, someone chimes in "RCI must have rented what you are looking for."  Is that really the only thing that is going on?  No one lacks trading power? Summer beach weeks haven't always been hard to get?  And ... as Dave mentions, with the advent of the Internet, it has become very easy for people to rent their own units.  Are we saying that when growing numbers of people decide that they can easily rent via the Internet, this has no impact on availability?  (Yes, one poster is going to say that the Internet has had no impact on timesharing.  I don't buy that for a moment.)
> 
> **********************
> 
> I might add another factor that has impacted trading patterns.  Online trading.  At first, when only a small number of people used it and saw what was sitting untaken, it was a real bonanza.  On the other hand, when online trading began to really take hold, and lots of people begin to shop around, people begin to notice that the better units were getting harder and harder to get. More and more people were searching around for the best trade they could get as opposed to just asking RCI for a possible trade at some one location.  Guess what happens when lots of people start shopping and see that they can trade for something they did not imagine was available?  The really good trades disappear faster and faster.
> 
> As an aside, when I first mentioned this, I was told - in a very condenscening fashion, I might add - that the growing popularity of online trading had no impact on the availability of good units - it was because Points owners were raiding the Weeks inventory. At that time, about one-half of one percent of RCI owners had Points units, but online trading was approaching ten percent - a milestone where the ordinary Joe was beginning to participate in shopping around. But - as Dave mentioned - people don't want to look in the mirror and admit that the practices that they themselves participate in might be having some sort of overall negative impact.  Better to scapegoat.  So there were mobs (I think that is the appropriate word) of TUGGERs who were willing to accept that the good trades were disappearing from the online board because Points (one half on one percent) was raiding Weeks. I am sorry.  I believed and still believe that when just a few people were knowledgeable enough to shop around for the best unit available via online trading, they, not surprisingly, found good units sitting there.  When the number of shoppers increased, the good units got taken faster. Rather than look in the mirror, find a scapegoat.


----------



## Carolinian

Dave599 said:


> Early to mid November from my friend at rci however nothing is carved in stone........



Great!  Just in time to cause massive blowback to HOA's as in coincides with m/f bills going out.  They are setting up a tsunami of bailouts for HOA's.  Is that part of the grand RCI agenda?  Did you ''friend'' in the main RCI headquarters that you allude to tell you why they came up with this timing?  What is their broader agenda?  Or are they just stupid?


----------



## Mel

AwayWeGo said:


> One RCI feature we specially like is _Raiding The Weeks Inventory_ via RCI Points, particularly _Instant Exchange_ for no more than 9*,*000 points + exchange fee.  Never mind that the _Instant Exchange_ offerings are mostly the off-season dogs & cats.  And pay no attention to the fact that points raids made using points from PFD aren't so much actual _Weeks Inventory Raids_ as they are straight-weeks reservations that happened to take a procedural detour into & then back out of the points system.  Some raid.


That's one of the inequities of the pair of systems that might be fixed by this change.  

If, as RCI is suggesting, trading power will stay the same as it is now, that suggests that at 45 days, all weeks diminish to the same trade power, equivalent to those 9,000 points (though it seems some drop as low as 7,500 points).  Perhaps we will ALL be able to "raid" the weeks side for last minute deposits.  That moderate blue week worth 20,000 points that was turned over to the HOA becomes more valuable to someone else who can travel last-minute; and not just to someone who could use it to PFD, but to anyone with a weeks account, and it doesn't have to be at a resort not affiliated with points.

In fact, if the system will stay roughly the same, those who do daily searches might be able to get an even better idea of how the system works, as they will see the dynamic changes to the cost of certain weeks that are bulk banked.

No matter how RCI calculates the point values, there are a few things we can be pretty sure of, and they might change the behavior of RCI members to counteract what happened when exchanges started being available online:

1 - Right now, an exchanger sees a 1BR, 2BR and 3BR unit available where they want to travel.  Under the weeks system, they all cost the same, so why not take the 3BR.  Unless there is some extra charge (mandatory utility charge, or something similar), I don't know many who would take the 1BR unit, even if it was big enough for their family of 4, and most would take the 3BR.  Under this new system, perhaps that family will choose the 1BR if it means points left for another vacation.

2 - Right now, owners of many lockoff units deposit them as 2 units, locking them in as 2 smaller units.  They would rather have 2 exchanges, than only one, when they don't think they can get full value out of that one exchange.  But if they can deposit as a single unit, and still get 2 exchanges out of it (and maybe one would be something better than they get with a single side of the lockoff), perhaps more full units will be deposited.

3 - those last minute discounts, and bulk banking (maybe this will provide the incentive for owners to get resorts to stop doing it, as it may be an explanation for why "generic" deposits from certain resorts don't trade well).  I can see this from two different vantages as someone wanting to trade in.  My Panama City Beach weeks can see almost anything, so I presume it will have enough value to trade into almost anything.  RCI says the dynamic part is not the value of my week once it is deposited, but of other weeks as they are deposited, hence the low cost of those bulk weeks.  The question is, do I take the July DVC unit I can see for XXX,000 points, or do I wait until there is a bulk banking, and get an August  DVC unit for half as many points? (And risk not noticing the bulk bank, and missing the opportunity for either).

I agree there will be changes, and some may want no part of them.  But this has the potential for some positive changes as well.

Carolinian - you are the one who said the value has diminished for Blue week owners, and the resorts need to do something to provide some value to those owners (or to potential new owners of those weeks).  I think played right, this could provide that value.  Maybe not much for the true dog weeks (9000 points, with high maintenance fees), but this could potentially double the value of the weeks worth the equivalent of 18,000 points, and I bet they are many of those.


----------



## MichaelColey

rickandcindy23 said:


> It should be against the law for RCI to rent what WE own, because they are supposed to be an exchange company.


I have to disagree.  If we deposit a week and get to exchange for another week, they'll fulfilled their obligations.  They've allowed us to exchange.  I've only made at this for a few months, but I've been very happy with my exchanges.  As long as I continue to be able to get exchanges that I like better than the weeks I deposit, I'll continue to use them.  If that stops, I have lots of other choices (RCI Points, II, and actually using my weeks).  I plan on trying the other choices to maximize my options, but so far RCI Weeks has been very good to me.  I've exchanged 1BR and 2BR Orlando and Branson weeks for 2BR Wyndham Bonnet Creek (twice), 2BR DVC, a 2BR in Kauai and a 3BR at Summer Bay.  I couldn't rent any of those for my MF$ + Exchange Fee.


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


> I have to disagree.  If we deposit a week and get to exchange for another week, they'll fulfilled their obligations.  They've allowed us to exchange.  I've only made at this for a few months, but I've been very happy with my exchanges.  As long as I continue to be able to get exchanges that I like better than the weeks I deposit, I'll continue to use them.  If that stops, I have lots of other choices (RCI Points, II, and actually using my weeks).  I plan on trying the other choices to maximize my options, but so far RCI Weeks has been very good to me.  I've exchanged 1BR and 2BR Orlando and Branson weeks for 2BR Wyndham Bonnet Creek (twice), 2BR DVC, a 2BR in Kauai and a 3BR at Summer Bay.  I couldn't rent any of those for my MF$ + Exchange Fee.



But then again, you were not around when RCI ran things fairly and honestly, before Cendant (now Wyndham) took over.  When one compares all the things like warm season UK that used to be readily availible before RCI started looting the system to rent to the general public that are now scarce as hens teeth, he can really see the downgrade that RCI has inflicted upon its members.  You are not in a position to be able to compare the old honest RCI with the new bandit RCI.


----------



## Carolinian

Mel said:


> Carolinian - you are the one who said the value has diminished for Blue week owners, and the resorts need to do something to provide some value to those owners (or to potential new owners of those weeks).  I think played right, this could provide that value.  Maybe not much for the true dog weeks (9000 points, with high maintenance fees), but this could potentially double the value of the weeks worth the equivalent of 18,000 points, and I bet they are many of those.



The problem is that it is unlikely that all dog weeks are treated the same.  Those that are true dog weeks because they are from an overbuilt area and the exchange system is flooded with many more weeks than it has demand for there are not likely to feel the same pain, as RCI will pander to the developers and with a published system not give them their true value.  One can expect this based on RCI's history of overpointing such areas in RCI Points and of giving such areas a phony ''red all year'' designation when their own availibility tables published in the European version of their directory clearly show that on supply/demand curves some of those weeks really ought to be blue and white.  This will mean that owners of dog weeks will be even more limited in their exchange options than they are now, and that is going to lead to a tsunami of bailouts.

As to doubling or tripling m/f's to exchange for one week, that is almost laughable for anyone to think that such is a realistic option.  That means doubling or tripling m/f's.  It is cheaper just to rent from RCI than to do that. RCI is building a system to make such weeks totally unattractive for exchanging.

The bailout may be so large that in one fell stroke, RCI may shrink itself to being smaller than II.  They are already on track for that to happen in a few years as RCI has been steadily losing market share while II has been steadily gaining, but this may really speed it up.

And if they think they have a pile of excess inventory from the overbuilt areas now, just wait.  When they make it so other dog weeks - those with similar supply / demand characteristics - cannot trade in without doubling up, then that pile is only going to get bigger.

Value in an exchange system should only be based on two factors - 1) supply and 2) demand.  Anyting else is just a driver of one of those two factors and should not be rated seperately.  If it is, then that is only putting a thumb on the scales to favor or disfavor particular resorts or types of resorts.


----------



## krj9999

I guess another question is how significantly will the timing of the deposit affect the credit value.  Unclear.

Also, the page describes trading power will be provided after you deposit, not before.  So at least the way I read it, it doesn't sound like you will be able to find out the credit value with any certainty before you deposit.


----------



## krj9999

I just searched Hawaii in II and came up with 3 resorts (with a total of 5 weeks) using my *wood week.

In looking at Getaways, there are 23 resorts available including 4 weeks at Sands of Kahana that are not available for exchange (as I don't see any Sands of Kahana weeks for exchange).

Is there really that much difference between RCI and II?  Can you really claim those extra weeks are "exchange" weeks that should be available for trade?



rickandcindy23 said:


> When I search Hawaii with my best traders, most days there are < 25 resorts available, < 500 weeks.  When I search Extra Vacations and Exchange together, there are usually 36 resorts and 1,000's of weeks.
> 
> RCI is saying to me: "Nanny, nanny, boo, boo, we have weeks you cannot have."


----------



## Dave599

Carolinian said:


> Great!  Just in time to cause massive blowback to HOA's as in coincides with m/f bills going out.  They are setting up a tsunami of bailouts for HOA's.  Is that part of the grand RCI agenda?  Did you ''friend'' in the main RCI headquarters that you allude to tell you why they came up with this timing?  What is their broader agenda?  Or are they just stupid?



I don't think my friend would know the answer to that, she is just a front line agent not a big wig. I can tell you today is NOT the change over its a fix up day or whatever. the BIG change will come in November 12/13/14 or maybe 19/20/21, you will know because rci with be completely shut down for 3 days......web site, call centers everything, so don't plan on doing anything around that time......

Dave


----------



## Dave599

krj9999 said:


> I guess another question is how significantly will the timing of the deposit affect the credit value.  Unclear.
> 
> Also, the page describes trading power will be provided after you deposit, not before.  So at least the way I read it, it doesn't sound like you will be able to find out the credit value with any certainty before you deposit.



I had an email chart of value loss based on when you deposit that I can't seem to locate however from memory (numbers may be off a little, memory deteriots with age) if you deposit 9 months or more out you get 100 % of trading value calulated based on supply and demand (mostly) unit size, season and vep.

depositing more then 9 months out doesn't give you more trading value 
you just get 100% of the value calculated by the formula above

what you loose banking less then 9 months is a percentage of what you would have gotten had you banked 9 months or more out.

from 9 months to 8 90%
from 8 months to 6 80%
from 6 months to 4 60%
from 4 months to 2 50%
from 2 months to 14 days 45 %
from 14 days down, if they take it 30 %

As I said these numbers may NOT be 100% accurate, I am going by memory but the bottom line is the longer you wait the more you waste......

It is also very important to realize that if you own at a resort that bulk deposit the same time every year to get your deposits in BEFORE they do there bulk deposits because they will boost the supply curve and give your deposit less value, if they let you deposit yourself....... 

It also makes sense, that when most people get there m/f in nov/dec and pay them dec/jan and then deposit which happens every year so to do your best on trading value to deposit before the masses if you can......either because your resort will allow you to deposit before you pay your m/f or pay your m/f early to deposit early........

NOTE: supply and demand is based on historical data NOT live data so if 100 people deposit into resort x today and have never done so before and you deposit tomorrow if should have no or very little effect on your trading value, because its a one time event and although it would boost supply for today it would not be part of historical data. If they started depositing this way every year then it would eventually affect your trading value in a negative way. 

Its the same with with special events, motorcycle rally's, car races, golf events etc if they happen the same time every year they creep into historical data and affect trading value if they move around they never get into historical data and so do not affect trading value

I have been told there will be a calculator on the web site that will allow you to see your trading value that you will get if you deposit today before you deposit. I don't know if I asked if it will tell you what you would get if you waited 3 months.........


Dave


----------



## itisme

*Floating Week owners*

I recently purchased Carriage Hills on eBay. It closed couple of weeks back but have not got my documents yet. I purchased floating red season. If I choose to deposit, I will be screwed  as resort can pick any week in the red season to deposit. I cannot pick a  specific week. As most of us know, Red season varies from bright red to pink and will have significantly different trading power.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> The problem is that it is unlikely that all dog weeks are treated the same.  Those that are true dog weeks because they are from an overbuilt area and the exchange system is flooded with many more weeks than it has demand for there are not likely to feel the same pain, as RCI will pander to the developers and with a published system not give them their true value.  One can expect this based on RCI's history of overpointing such areas in RCI Points and of giving such areas a phony ''red all year'' designation when their own availibility tables published in the European version of their directory clearly show that on supply/demand curves some of those weeks really ought to be blue and white.  This will mean that owners of dog weeks will be even more limited in their exchange options than they are now, and that is going to lead to a tsunami of bailouts.
> 
> The problem is that none of us will agree what are truly dog weeks.  Yes, the "overbuilt" areas have more supply than demand, but you can't tell me the supply/demand ratio of Orlando in January is worse than Cape Cod an January - it's still far more in demand.  Also, RCI has said that the only major change is that the numbers will be published, but the underlying valuation system will remain the same.  If that is true, then those weeks that can exchange into Orlando and Williamsburg today will still trade into Orlando and Williamsburg  after the change.
> 
> As to doubling or tripling m/f's to exchange for one week, that is almost laughable for anyone to think that such is a realistic option.  That means doubling or tripling m/f's.  It is cheaper just to rent from RCI than to do that. RCI is building a system to make such weeks totally unattractive for exchanging.
> When you're doubling a low fee ($200), to get into something that rents for $700, it realistic.  Not all dog weeks have high fees.
> 
> I suspect that anything that has value as a PFD week will have some value in this new system.
> 
> Also, that wasn't what I was suggesting anyway.  I was suggesting that some of those low-value weeks, those that are low, but not bottom of the barrel, might benefits by being able to exchange into two last-minute weeks.  That can be done now, for those in Points, why shouldn't it also be available to the rest of us?
> The bailout may be so large that in one fell stroke, RCI may shrink itself to being smaller than II.  They are already on track for that to happen in a few years as RCI has been steadily losing market share while II has been steadily gaining, but this may really speed it up.
> 
> And if they think they have a pile of excess inventory from the overbuilt areas now, just wait.  When they make it so other dog weeks - those with similar supply / demand characteristics - cannot trade in without doubling up, then that pile is only going to get bigger.
> 
> Again, if they're not changing the fundamental way things are valued, they won't lose their ability to exchange in
> 
> Value in an exchange system should only be based on two factors - 1) supply and 2) demand.  Anyting else is just a driver of one of those two factors and should not be rated seperately.  If it is, then that is only putting a thumb on the scales to favor or disfavor particular resorts or types of resorts.



If I were RCI, and wanted to manipulate the system, so I could skim desireable weeks for rentals, it would be those weeks that I would overrate, so nobody would accept them as exchanges.  If they cost too much, so nobody wants them as exchanger, they truly become excess inventory.

It is of little to no benefit to RCI to overvalue anything, because it is the overvalued weeks that will get left over.  The RCI Points system is too simplistic because, as you say, there isn't enough differentiation, and the system is static.  In the current weeks system, I can see slight variations between my two beech weeks which in Points would have the same value, and expect that to hold true in the new system.  I will also expect to see see variations based on the existing inventory when I want to deposit - if RCI needs my week, I expect to get more value.  If they already have 150 similar weeks on deposit, I expect to see less.

What I want to see is how they handle those multiple deposits, particularly bulk banking.  I already know my deposited week will hold its value at the time of deposit, for me - but as other weeks are deposited, causing a reduction in the credits needed to exchange in (as happens with a bulk deposit), will the credits required drop for ALL related weeks, and then rise as weeks are taken, or will they only drop for the specific later deposits? 

Could it then be of benefit to me to deposit my Orland week 1 year out, and exchange back into it for fewer credits at the 6-month window, giving me excess credits to apply to another vacation (obviously at a cost of an exchange fee)?  If I owned a lockout, would it be worthwhile to deposit early, and exchange back into a similar (or same) full unit for credits equivalent to one side of the lockout?  Again, it would cost me an exchange fee, but in essesence, I get an extra week for those $200.

While the transparency of this new system will take away some of the hidden benefits enjoyed by many here, there will be new ways to use the system to our advantage.


----------



## Mel

Dave599 said:


> I had an email chart of value loss based on when you deposit that I can't seem to locate however from memory (numbers may be off a little, memory deteriots with age) if you deposit 9 months or more out you get 100 % of trading value calulated based on supply and demand (mostly) unit size, season and vep.
> 
> I hope you find it - I for one would love to see it
> 
> It is also very important to realize that if you own at a resort that bulk deposit the same time every year to get your deposits in BEFORE they do there bulk deposits because they will boost the supply curve and give your deposit less value, if they let you deposit yourself.......
> 
> It also makes sense, that when most people get there m/f in nov/dec and pay them dec/jan and then deposit which happens every year so to do your best on trading value to deposit before the masses if you can......either because your resort will allow you to deposit before you pay your m/f or pay your m/f early to deposit early........
> 
> NOTE: supply and demand is based on historical data NOT live data so if 100 people deposit into resort x today and have never done so before and you deposit tomorrow if should have no or very little effect on your trading value, because its a one time event and although it would boost supply for today it would not be part of historical data. If they started depositing this way every year then it would eventually affect your trading value in a negative way.
> 
> These first two paragraphs contradict the last - I would expect anticipated DEMAND to be based on historical data, but SUPPLY to be based of real-time data.  100 other owners deciding to deposit today would be similar to your resort bulk-banking.  Supply goes up, no corresponding change to demand, so trading value IS affected in a negative way.  But I would think the increased spot demand could have an impact as well, because it would negatively impact existing supply.
> 
> Its the same with with special events, motorcycle rally's, car races, golf events etc if they happen the same time every year they creep into historical data and affect trading value if they move around they never get into historical data and so do not affect trading value
> 
> I have been told there will be a calculator on the web site that will allow you to see your trading value that you will get if you deposit today before you deposit. I don't know if I asked if it will tell you what you would get if you waited 3 months.


If I were RCI, I would only offer today's value, because there are too many factors that could impact it 3 months away.  If RCI promised your trade power would only drop 20% in the next 3 months, and you hold out and try to rent, how upset will you be when it really drops 40%?  How many RCI members would than accuse RCI of lying to them?  Or what if you deposit now, instead of taking a risk, and it only drops 5 % because your resort decided not to bulk bank?


----------



## e.bram

Carolinian: What is fairly? RCI is a business after all.
To me if RCA put in a request first mode like II, that would do it.


----------



## Dave599

Mel said:


> If I were RCI, I would only offer today's value, because there are too many factors that could impact it 3 months away.  If RCI promised your trade power would only drop 20% in the next 3 months, and you hold out and try to rent, how upset will you be when it really drops 40%?  How many RCI members would than accuse RCI of lying to them?  Or what if you deposit now, instead of taking a risk, and it only drops 5 % because your resort decided not to bulk bank?



Not correct, if 100 people choose to deposit today they would have to deposit today for the next several years (or at least this week) for it to impact your deposit value, because then it would become historical data it happening once does NOT add it to historical data Same with your resort doing bulk deposits for it to impact your trading value they would have to do it the same time every year to impact......

Story mode:  I remember this because it shows how it works:

A owner owned at some nondescript junk resort in central US and for the first couple of years it was what you would expect he got junk or nothing. Then all of a sudden he could get anything anywhere anytime. He never questioned it, don't fix it if it aint broke. Then after 10 years it all ended and went back to getting nothing.  This he did question of his resort, )I may not have the right name but it sticks in my mind) for the previous 8 years or so on this mans owned week Jimmy Carter stayed at the resort and it drove demand so high he could get anything, 2 or 3 years after Carter stop going it fell out of historical data and his value bottomed out It did not affect his value for the first couple of years because it had not been added to historical data yet......

I would think rci could tell you right now what your trading value is for your week from today out to its end because historical data for trading value for the next 12 months would already be calculated, what happens in the next few months won't make any difference this year but may next year if its happened several years in a row at the same time......

Dave


----------



## Carolinian

Your quoting in red does not allow me to put that here as a quote. Clever!

First - January in Florida is snowbird, i.e. high, season.  January in Cape Cod is bitterly cold.  Again, quite clever to compare a high season one place with a low season another.  But it is not a valid comparision.

A $200/ week m/f in the US?  What have you been smoking?  Those are quite rare if they even exist.  Not a valid comparision.  Yes, in some countries with a devalued currency like SA they might be found, but that is not a ''dog week''. According to the supply / demand charts published in the European version of the RCI directory, SA smokes Orlando.  Under those charts if anything in SA is a dog week, then most of the year in Orlando is.

RCI's overpointing seems to be driven more by developer politicking than by RCI trying to loot weeks to rent.  Although it helps justify their looting, they take what they want anyway.





Mel said:


> If I were RCI, and wanted to manipulate the system, so I could skim desireable weeks for rentals, it would be those weeks that I would overrate, so nobody would accept them as exchanges.  If they cost too much, so nobody wants them as exchanger, they truly become excess inventory.
> 
> It is of little to no benefit to RCI to overvalue anything, because it is the overvalued weeks that will get left over.  The RCI Points system is too simplistic because, as you say, there isn't enough differentiation, and the system is static.  In the current weeks system, I can see slight variations between my two beech weeks which in Points would have the same value, and expect that to hold true in the new system.  I will also expect to see see variations based on the existing inventory when I want to deposit - if RCI needs my week, I expect to get more value.  If they already have 150 similar weeks on deposit, I expect to see less.
> 
> What I want to see is how they handle those multiple deposits, particularly bulk banking.  I already know my deposited week will hold its value at the time of deposit, for me - but as other weeks are deposited, causing a reduction in the credits needed to exchange in (as happens with a bulk deposit), will the credits required drop for ALL related weeks, and then rise as weeks are taken, or will they only drop for the specific later deposits?
> 
> Could it then be of benefit to me to deposit my Orland week 1 year out, and exchange back into it for fewer credits at the 6-month window, giving me excess credits to apply to another vacation (obviously at a cost of an exchange fee)?  If I owned a lockout, would it be worthwhile to deposit early, and exchange back into a similar (or same) full unit for credits equivalent to one side of the lockout?  Again, it would cost me an exchange fee, but in essesence, I get an extra week for those $200.
> 
> While the transparency of this new system will take away some of the hidden benefits enjoyed by many here, there will be new ways to use the system to our advantage.


----------



## skimble

Will this be a dynamically changing system that adjusts with market demand?  Hawaii was a hot trade two years ago... but today, with high airfare costs, it's low demand.  
Do you think the credits will adjust accordingly?


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Correct Again, Sir.*




Carolinian said:


> January in Florida is snowbird, i.e. high, season.


Even so, for some reason the 1st 2 weeks in January seem to be more like off-season, judging by the plentiful supply of _Last Call_ & _Instant Exchange_ timeshare weeks during that period each year ever since we started timeshare vacationing.  

I would expect January to be prime snowbird time all month long, but apparently it takes the snowbirds a couple of weeks to recover from the Christmas & New Year holidays before heading south, even though up North they face snow up to the window sills & ice up to the hubcaps. 

Who'd a-thunk ? 

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


----------



## "Roger"

We are getting the Orlando-is-overpointed-because-published-values-lead-developers-to-pressure-RCI-into-overpointing-their-resorts argument (hereafter to be referred to as the OIOBPVLDTPRIOTR argument  ).  Supposedly, hidden values lead (have led) to more realistic (and fairer) evaluations. Therefore, we are better off with a secret system.

This type of argument is called an argument from ignorance.  This is an official name for a type of fallacious argument. (In other words, this is not a title I am making up in order to be abusive.) This type of argument depends upon someone presuming that something that we have no knowledge of (are ignorant of) is just what it has to be to win the argument.  In the above case, the presumption is that, within the current system of unpublished trading powers, Orlando units pulls something quite different (vastly less) than what they do in Points.  But do we really know that?

In this case, we are not entirely lacking in knowledge as to how Orlando units trade within a system of unpublished values.  See post #269 in this thread.  The long and the short of it is that when TUG did trade tests, Orlando did not get bottom basement treatment within a system of hidden trading power because of a vast oversupply of units.  It had what I would call second tier trading value.  There are a few places with exceptionally high trading power, then Orlando (and quite a few other places) falling into a second tier. _This is just the same as what is true in Points._ So open values do not seem to have led to massive distortions of trading power.

The bottomline is don't just assume (as the OIOBPVLDTPRIOTR argument suggests) that somehow the current secret system of trading power does things exactly as someone argues it must in order to win an argument. In this case, there is evidence to the contrary.


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> ...
> Then there are the people with pink weeks in Gold Crown resorts in areas with a so-so supply / demand curve.  These people are going to get a comeupance.  They have thought they were Red Gold Crown, top of the heap, as their saleman told them, and will find out otherwise...


This was a point that Carolinian made several days ago.  I was going to ignore it, but I decided, rather than getting into all the negative, defensive arguments, it would be valuable to state the positive... why the changeover is a good thing.

I agree with what Carolinian says in the quote.  When trading power is revealed, there are going to be people in so-so supply areas (or people with pink season weeks) who are going to be irrate when they find that their two bedroom gold crown unit is worth _considerably less _than what their salesperson led them to believe (if they haven't found that already).  That is the very reason that the current system needs to change.  

For the last ten years, I have been arguing that if there were one single change that should be made to clean up timesharing (and I am not suggesting that there is only one, this is just the one that I think is the biggest), it should be that exchange companies should reveal trading power.  Why?  Look at the quote.  Over the last ten years, developers have had free reign to over represent the trading power of their units.  This has cost naive buyers tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of dollars when they ended up buying overpriced units based upon inflated claims.  LET THE BUYER KNOW WHAT HE OR SHE IS BUYING. (Sorry about shouting.)

Basically, the system of hidden trading values has been a developer relief fund allowing them to overcharge for thier product.  No, it doesn't affect me, but I care. Lets get together as a timesharing community and try to end this abusive system.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*You Typed A Mouthful.*




"Roger" said:


> The bottomline is don't just assume (as the OIOBPVLDTPRIOTR argument suggests) that somehow the current secret system of trading power does things exactly as someone argues it must in order to win an argument. In this case, there is evidence to the contrary.


I don't assume that -- & it's nice getting some TUG-BBS reinforcement in that regard. 

I have as much nostalgia for the _Good Old Days_ as just about anybody else, but I also recognize that for most practical purposes the _Good Old Days Are Now_. 

Even if the _Good Old Days_ of the past were better -- maybe they were, maybe they weren't, who knows? -- those days are _over_ & all we've got to live in is the world as it is now.  

In my semi-ignorant way, I say shux upon secret hidden timeshare trading power ratings set by the _Gnomes Of RCI_ tucked away in some clandestine sub-basement somewhere outside Carmel, Indiana.  

Nobody I know claims the value settings of RCI Points are anywhere close to perfect -- just that, once set, they're all out there in the open for people to accept or reject for their own reasons that are good enough for them.  

People who don't like it can sign on instead with I-I -- & in the process help I-I stay on trend to eclipse RCI just any day now. 

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


----------



## Lisa P

Carolinian said:


> A $200/ week m/f in the US?


Quite common in points systems.  A blue studio deposit only costs me ~$120 in MF.  Its low trade power accurately reflects this.

Where resorts charge all fixed week owners the same MFs year-round, even though the value of a red week far exceeds the value of a blue week, you'll rarely find a $200 MF.  However, THAT inequity puts a greater pressure on POA budgets through blue week foreclosures than anything an external exchange company has done or could do to seasonal timeshares.


----------



## Lisa P

"Roger" said:


> We are getting the Orlando-is-overpointed-because-published-values-lead-developers-to-pressure-RCI-into-overpointing-their-resorts argument (hereafter to be referred to as the OIOBPVLDTPRIOTR argument  ).


!!!!!   :rofl: :hysterical:  If only I could remember these letters.... :hysterical:  Thanks for the smiles and thank you for your clear, well-worded post.


----------



## bankr63

Dave599 said:


> I will not for a second deny that rci moves some quantity of deposited weeks into rental, they have done so in the past, do so now, and will continue to do so in the future.....However I would hazard a guess that rci's part in the rental loss of deposits is maybe 10%, 90% is the members themselves renting there units you said above if you don't use them "you rent them for big bucks" you don't think that has a profound impact on whats available to trade...........and all you have to do is look on ebay, Kijiji, craigslist, this board, redweek or and of the thousands of boards like them to see the volume of units that are up for rental by there owners those are all weeks that are not getting deposited for trade. No one will deny your right to rent your units but STOP COMPLAINING THAT THERE ARE NO UNITS AVAILABLE TO TRADE INTO in one breath and RENT YOUR UNITS IN THE NEXT. I realize rci is a convenient target its never easy to see the face of the person at fault when you look in a mirror but that's the person who has taken most of the weeks out of the trade pool not rci by a long shot.........
> 
> Dave



Hi,

Just checking back in, and I wanted to state that this argument doesn't seem to really hold water IMO.

RCI was (originally) setup for the intention of exchanging weeks.  If an owner is renting their week privately, then their intent for that year is NOT to use, so renting it is the ONLY option available.  Depositing that week to RCI leaves the owner with a week they can't use, and can no longer rent (since depositors are banned from renting exchanges on RCI).  If you deposit and don't use, then you lose the opportunity to trade AND lose the opportunity to recover your MF.  I own slightly more time than I can use on a regular basis, so I occasionally rent a surplus week to cover the MF.  I certainly don't feel guilty for denying RCI the opportunity to take my surplus unit for free as excess inventory and then renting it for their profit (and my loss) instead.  

*IF* an owner deposits a week to RCI, then it should be for the intention of exchanging only.  And all other units deposited by other owners for exchanging should be (subject to trading power) available to that owner to trade into.  Skimming units for rental is wrong but defensable as a small percentage of deposits will go unused.  Once the rental skim starts to affect trading because trades that should be available are no longer there, THEN there is a problem.  Owners renting out their own units because they don't plan to vacation at all that year in NO WAY should affect that equation.  I suspect that II more closely follows the former formula for skimming, but RCI has gone too far.


----------



## bnoble

> If an owner is renting their week privately, then their intent for that year is NOT to use, so renting it is the ONLY option available.


Not at all.  It is possible that the owner has decided that they get better value by renting their unit out, and using the proceeds to secure the vacation lodging they desire.  Someone who owns a very high-demand week is very likely to take in more than they spend.


----------



## Mel

Dave599 said:


> Not correct, if 100 people choose to deposit today they would have to deposit today for the next several years (or at least this week) for it to impact your deposit value, because then it would become historical data it happening once does NOT add it to historical data Same with your resort doing bulk deposits for it to impact your trading value they would have to do it the same time every year to impact......
> 
> Story mode:  I remember this because it shows how it works:
> 
> A owner owned at some nondescript junk resort in central US and for the first couple of years it was what you would expect he got junk or nothing. Then all of a sudden he could get anything anywhere anytime. He never questioned it, don't fix it if it aint broke. Then after 10 years it all ended and went back to getting nothing.  This he did question of his resort, )I may not have the right name but it sticks in my mind) for the previous 8 years or so on this mans owned week Jimmy Carter stayed at the resort and it drove demand so high he could get anything, 2 or 3 years after Carter stop going it fell out of historical data and his value bottomed out It did not affect his value for the first couple of years because it had not been added to historical data yet......
> 
> I would think rci could tell you right now what your trading value is for your week from today out to its end because historical data for trading value for the next 12 months would already be calculated, what happens in the next few months won't make any difference this year but may next year if its happened several years in a row at the same time......
> 
> Dave



If that's the case, then why does the trade power required to obtain a week drop dramatically when a bulk banking happens?  Historical data is part of the equation, on the demand side (which is why that particular resort had high demand for several years), but the supply side is not historical - that is based on current data.  The value of my deposit doesn't change when a bulk banking happens, but the value needed to exhchange into one of those weeks drops.  One would presume that the value offered to someone depositing such a week following a bulk deposit would also drop.



Carolinian said:


> Your quoting in red does not allow me to put that here as a quote. Clever!
> 
> First - January in Florida is snowbird, i.e. high, season.  January in Cape Cod is bitterly cold.  Again, quite clever to compare a high season one place with a low season another.  But it is not a valid comparision.
> 
> A $200/ week m/f in the US?  What have you been smoking?  Those are quite rare if they even exist.  Not a valid comparision.  Yes, in some countries with a devalued currency like SA they might be found, but that is not a ''dog week''. According to the supply / demand charts published in the European version of the RCI directory, SA smokes Orlando.  Under those charts if anything in SA is a dog week, then most of the year in Orlando is.
> 
> RCI's overpointing seems to be driven more by developer politicking than by RCI trying to loot weeks to rent.  Although it helps justify their looting, they take what they want anyway.


I replied in red, because I didn't want to have to edit quote t be able to respond to individual parts - sorry if it made it difficult to quote.

As for Orlando in January, as Alan has so kindly pointed out, the first 2 weeks of January are extremely easy trades in Orlando.  Snow birds don't care about Orlando as much as the rest of Florida.  Early January in Orlando is in fact one of the easiest time to exchange in - so yet it is a reasonable comparison the Cape Cod in January.  Do you have another suggestion for what you would consider low season for Orlando?  Whenever it is, I bet the demand far outstrips Cape Cod in January.

And yes, there are weeks in the US with maintenance fees of $200.  The reason nobody talks about them here is because they are poor traders, and not something many of us would buy.  Mostly they are low-value points packages at resorts that change fees based on point values.

The supply and demand charts for Europe.  I'm sure supply and demand factor greatly into the values RCI will assign.  But I'm sure there are other factors too.  Also remember that those show supply and demand for Orlando as a whole.  Because of the vast range of quality in the Orlando resorts, I suspect we will find a vast range of values assigned to Orlando weeks - and perhaps we will find that the average value of an Orlando week will be right where you expect.  Some will be much higher, others will be much lower.

Remember also that those charts include supply and demand of all the internal trades.  If a small resort where 505 units are deposited per year, and requests are made for 500 of those units, supply outstrips demand by 5 units, or 1%.  If another resort had requests for 50,000 units, the supply would outstrip demand by 1% with 50,500 unit - that's 500 unused units, but the same supply/demand factors.  if there are only 50,200 deposits, leaving 200 unused, is that significant oversupply?  It's all a matter of scale.

We really won't be able to tell anything until we see some actual numbers - and watch how they change over time.


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> A $200/ week m/f in the US? What have you been smoking? Those are quite rare if they even exist.





Mel said:


> And yes, there are weeks in the US with maintenance fees of $200. The reason nobody talks about them here is because they are poor traders, and not something many of us would buy. Mostly they are low-value points packages at resorts that change fees based on point values.


FYI, several of mine are in that range.

My Palace View 3BR Lockouts are $524 with no fee to split, so they're $262 per side.  With the right week deposited, they trade really good.  I got a 2BR DVC unit out of my 2BR side and can see 1BR DVC units with the 1BR side.

With my Christmas Mountain Village UDI, I should be able to get 2-3 Red weeks, 4-6 good White weeks, and probably 6-8 last minute deposits.  That's 12-17 weeks, at a cost of $1500-$2000, so about $125 per week.  I just got to deposit my first week today (one of the last minute deposits, about 5 weeks out).  It's not a great trader, but it sees 89k units.  Half of my deposits should be quite a bit better than that.


----------



## Carolinian

If the $200 m/f weeks in the US are low value points packages, then they would not be trading on the Weeks side anyway, so how are the relevent to the discussion?

Having lived for a year in Florida myself, close to a resort area, I can tell you that low season in Florida is hurricane season.  Same for the Caribbean, incidentally.  Some places in the Caribbean, many hotels close for the whole month of September.

Supply and demand are the ONLY factors that should be considered in valuing deposits.  Anything else is merely a driver of one of those factors, not a seperate factor in and of itself.  If a driver is used as a seperate factor, then that one aspect is unfairly being double weighted in valuation and you then have an inherently unfair and dishonest valuation.




Mel said:


> If that's the case, then why does the trade power required to obtain a week drop dramatically when a bulk banking happens?  Historical data is part of the equation, on the demand side (which is why that particular resort had high demand for several years), but the supply side is not historical - that is based on current data.  The value of my deposit doesn't change when a bulk banking happens, but the value needed to exhchange into one of those weeks drops.  One would presume that the value offered to someone depositing such a week following a bulk deposit would also drop.
> 
> 
> I replied in red, because I didn't want to have to edit quote t be able to respond to individual parts - sorry if it made it difficult to quote.
> 
> As for Orlando in January, as Alan has so kindly pointed out, the first 2 weeks of January are extremely easy trades in Orlando.  Snow birds don't care about Orlando as much as the rest of Florida.  Early January in Orlando is in fact one of the easiest time to exchange in - so yet it is a reasonable comparison the Cape Cod in January.  Do you have another suggestion for what you would consider low season for Orlando?  Whenever it is, I bet the demand far outstrips Cape Cod in January.
> 
> And yes, there are weeks in the US with maintenance fees of $200.  The reason nobody talks about them here is because they are poor traders, and not something many of us would buy.  Mostly they are low-value points packages at resorts that change fees based on point values.
> 
> The supply and demand charts for Europe.  I'm sure supply and demand factor greatly into the values RCI will assign.  But I'm sure there are other factors too.  Also remember that those show supply and demand for Orlando as a whole.  Because of the vast range of quality in the Orlando resorts, I suspect we will find a vast range of values assigned to Orlando weeks - and perhaps we will find that the average value of an Orlando week will be right where you expect.  Some will be much higher, others will be much lower.
> 
> Remember also that those charts include supply and demand of all the internal trades.  If a small resort where 505 units are deposited per year, and requests are made for 500 of those units, supply outstrips demand by 5 units, or 1%.  If another resort had requests for 50,000 units, the supply would outstrip demand by 1% with 50,500 unit - that's 500 unused units, but the same supply/demand factors.  if there are only 50,200 deposits, leaving 200 unused, is that significant oversupply?  It's all a matter of scale.
> 
> We really won't be able to tell anything until we see some actual numbers - and watch how they change over time.


----------



## Carolinian

That is still a $524 m/f and a $1500-2000 m/f.  You can't own just half of a lockout or part of a UDI.




MichaelColey said:


> FYI, several of mine are in that range.
> 
> My Palace View 3BR Lockouts are $524 with no fee to split, so they're $262 per side.  With the right week deposited, they trade really good.  I got a 2BR DVC unit out of my 2BR side and can see 1BR DVC units with the 1BR side.
> 
> With my Christmas Mountain Village UDI, I should be able to get 2-3 Red weeks, 4-6 good White weeks, and probably 6-8 last minute deposits.  That's 12-17 weeks, at a cost of $1500-$2000, so about $125 per week.  I just got to deposit my first week today (one of the last minute deposits, about 5 weeks out).  It's not a great trader, but it sees 89k units.  Half of my deposits should be quite a bit better than that.


----------



## miamidan

Carolinian said:


> That is still a $524 m/f and a $1500-2000 m/f.  You can't own just half of a lockout or part of a UDI.



Carolinian,

You are right in that it is a maintenance fee of $524 but, he can get two deposits thus a maintenance fee per deposit of $262.  In the case of his UDI which he clearly stated he could get a minimum of 12 weeks and let's use his high figure of $2000 that works out to a mf of $167 per deposit week.

Don't want to split hairs but, those are very inexpensive deposit weeks.  Yes he is committed to the whole fee but, I think a mf per depositable or usable weeks is a better gauge than total mf imho.


----------



## miamidan

Carolinian said:


> If the $200 m/f weeks in the US are low value points packages, then they would not be trading on the Weeks side anyway, so how are the relevent to the discussion?
> 
> Having lived for a year in Florida myself, close to a resort area, I can tell you that low season in Florida is hurricane season.  Same for the Caribbean, incidentally.  Some places in the Caribbean, many hotels close for the whole month of September.
> 
> Supply and demand are the ONLY factors that should be considered in valuing deposits.  Anything else is merely a driver of one of those factors, not a seperate factor in and of itself.  If a driver is used as a seperate factor, then that one aspect is unfairly being double weighted in valuation and you then have an inherently unfair and dishonest valuation.



Hurrican season is from June 1 to December 1.  I can guarantee  you that does not stop people from visiting to the mouse.  What stops people from visiting the mouse are school schedules.  I would imagine that tourism figures for Florida during September/October would still dwarf those of other regional areas.


----------



## Carolinian

miamidan said:


> Hurrican season is from June 1 to December 1.  I can guarantee  you that does not stop people from visiting to the mouse.  What stops people from visiting the mouse are school schedules.  I would imagine that tourism figures for Florida during September/October would still dwarf those of other regional areas.



The HEIGHT of hurricane season, however, is September, and perhaps a week or so on either side.

For usage of timeshare or any other facilities it is not overall numbers which matter but percentage utilization of facilities.  That is what is a kick in the the rear end for overbuilt areas.


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> That is still a $524 m/f and a $1500-2000 m/f. You can't own just half of a lockout or part of a UDI.


If you just want/need one week per year, you're right.  In my case, I can easily use 15-20, so it works out great for me.

If RCI lets you combine trading value from multiple weeks (which may or may not be the case), these $200ish weeks could have some of the best TV/MF$ ratios out there.



miamidan said:


> You are right in that it is a maintenance fee of $524 but, he can get two deposits thus a maintenance fee per deposit of $262. In the case of his UDI which he clearly stated he could get a minimum of 12 weeks and let's use his high figure of $2000 that works out to a mf of $167 per deposit week.


The CMV UDI has about a $900 MF, but there's an additional $55 fee per week that I use or deposit, so if I do 12 weeks in a year, it's $1560 or $130 per week.  I actually prefer to spread the MF between the "good" weeks (6-9 per year if I do it right, so $100-$150 from MF + $55/week, so $155 - $205 per week) and consider the last minute deposits (which are weak to moderate traders) as bonuses at just $55 per week.


----------



## Lisa P

Carolinian said:


> If the $200 m/f weeks in the US are low value points packages, then they would not be trading on the Weeks side anyway, so how are the relevent to the discussion?


My 28,000 Wyndham point blue studio weeks are deposited to the weeks side.  There are people who own 28,000 point contracts, usually as add-ons to larger accounts but not always.  You suggested that MF in the range of $200/week didn't exist in the U.S.  They are not common for fixed weeks but they do exist.



Carolinian said:


> The HEIGHT of hurricane season, however, is September, and perhaps a week or so on either side.


So are you saying that you believe that the demand for September hurricane weeks in overbuilt Orlando is lower than the demand for January snow/wind weeks on Cape Cod?????  I've been to Orlando in early and late September and I'd have to disagree.  It's relatively quiet but not as quiet as frigid winter on the Cape.  Not even close.


----------



## Carolinian

Lisa P said:


> My 28,000 Wyndham point blue studio weeks are deposited to the weeks side.  There are people who own 28,000 point contracts, usually as add-ons to larger accounts but not always.  You suggested that MF in the range of $200/week didn't exist in the U.S.  They are not common for fixed weeks but they do exist.
> 
> 
> So are you saying that you believe that the demand for September hurricane weeks in overbuilt Orlando is lower than the demand for January snow/wind weeks on Cape Cod?????  I've been to Orlando in early and late September and I'd have to disagree.  It's relatively quiet but not as quiet as frigid winter on the Cape.  Not even close.



So you are saying that a points contract is a fixed week?

As to Orlando in September,  care to wager how many tens of thousands of more unused timeshare units are there at that time than in January in Cape Cod?  Again, with an overbuilt area, it goes to shear scale of numbers.


----------



## Carolinian

It's been a while since I saw the numbers somewhere, but from my recollection, the multiple week timeshare owners, while quire common on TUG or TS4MS is not typical and not in the majority in the timeshare community.  I would acknowledge that a points system may be more useful to a multi-weel owner than a single week owner.  




MichaelColey said:


> If you just want/need one week per year, you're right.  In my case, I can easily use 15-20, so it works out great for me.
> 
> If RCI lets you combine trading value from multiple weeks (which may or may not be the case), these $200ish weeks could have some of the best TV/MF$ ratios out there.
> 
> The CMV UDI has about a $900 MF, but there's an additional $55 fee per week that I use or deposit, so if I do 12 weeks in a year, it's $1560 or $130 per week.  I actually prefer to spread the MF between the "good" weeks (6-9 per year if I do it right, so $100-$150 from MF + $55/week, so $155 - $205 per week) and consider the last minute deposits (which are weak to moderate traders) as bonuses at just $55 per week.


----------



## MichaelColey

They're not all that common, but they do exist. It's just one of several ways to get maintenance fees in the neighborhood of $200 per week. Lockouts are another. I think 2BR lockouts at Palace View are closer to $450, so barely over $200 per week. South Africa is another timeshare that has MFs close to $200. I think Rayburn Country Club in Texas is as little as $297. They're out there.


----------



## timeos2

*The resort has to be proactive and find owner value*



Mel said:


> Carolinian - you are the one who said the value has diminished for Blue week owners, and the resorts need to do something to provide some value to those owners (or to potential new owners of those weeks).  I think played right, this could provide that value.  Maybe not much for the true dog weeks (9000 points, with high maintenance fees), but this could potentially double the value of the weeks worth the equivalent of 18,000 points, and I bet they are many of those.



This ia and has been a critical item always touted by the current weeks defenders. It is up to the RESORTS to provide a value for the money for these poor native value weeks NOT RCI/other owners to artificially give them value through trade. If it's a bad weather season then have on site amenities to provide value in poor weather. If it is a area that simply "closes down" for a few months each year then don't sell those those weeks and eat the fees by raising the usable weeks fees to cover the basic costs.  Find a way to squeeze value out of dog time and it can be marketed and at east a portion of the costs covered. Expecting a  third party - RCI, II, whatever group - to give it value has never been a real answer although apparently many resorts felt that was all they needed to survive. 

Welcome to the real world where the owners/resorts have to fend for themselves not expect handouts from unrelated third parties to give their resort/use time value. You should get out what you put in and in the case of the truly bad use times such as January beach weeks they had better have something more than just a simple unit/week to deposit as that by itself has less than zero value in trade. That RCI / II recognizes that and doesn't give value for nothing is simple economics of survival for all.


----------



## timeos2

*Don't deposit just to have your time rented*



MichaelColey said:


> I have to disagree.  If we deposit a week and get to exchange for another week, they'll fulfilled their obligations.  They've allowed us to exchange.  I've only made at this for a few months, but I've been very happy with my exchanges.  As long as I continue to be able to get exchanges that I like better than the weeks I deposit, I'll continue to use them.  If that stops, I have lots of other choices (RCI Points, II, and actually using my weeks).  I plan on trying the other choices to maximize my options, but so far RCI Weeks has been very good to me.  I've exchanged 1BR and 2BR Orlando and Branson weeks for 2BR Wyndham Bonnet Creek (twice), 2BR DVC, a 2BR in Kauai and a 3BR at Summer Bay.  I couldn't rent any of those for my MF$ + Exchange Fee.



Michael - None of what you have succeeded at would go away - in fact should be better/easier - if RCI was not allowed to rent deposits at will. Unfortunately the misguided demands of a vocal group of RCI haters led to a terrible class action lawsuit that not only didn't get any improvement but has now actually blessed their "rights" to rent and we'll never go back after that. Now the only choice to prevent RCI / II renting time at below annual fee rates at no benefit to members is to not give it to them period. If we do deposit it we are accepting their righ to rent and that is a curse on the whole system. 

RCI weeks should be looked at as a last resort of any type of trade  at this point due to the deplorable rules they have managed to establish for it's use. 
I'm with Carolinian and Cindy on this one - RCI should be legally prohibited from renting weeks deposited for trade. They aren't, now they never will be and we're to blame if we feed that rental monster as it is helping to kill timeshare value especially for the lower end times that make up 80% of all timeshare time available.  Horrible situation.


----------



## bilfbr245

A one bedroom summer unit at the Samoset  in Maine has a MF of about
 $320.  I traded mine for a week at the Manhatten Club.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> If the $200 m/f weeks in the US are low value points packages, then they would not be trading on the Weeks side anyway, so how are the relevent to the discussion?


Just because they are part of an internal points system does not mean they trade in RCI Points.

As for the UDIs, yes, they are part of a larger package, but they are still individual weeks.  And again, unless they are traded though RCI Points instead of Weeks, they cannot be combined, so they are indeed $200 weeks.

Not every week in the system is going to have some value to every member of RCI - some will have value to more than others.  The issue is for each week to have value to SOME members.  The only weeks I know of that would have little to no value would be those low-value weeks with high maintenance fees.  Those same weeks already have little value, and resorts that have those weeks need to do something about them - nothing RCI does will cause them to have value.  The question is which resorts/areas have those weeks.  You would have us all believe that Orlando has a glut of those weeks, and RCI overvalues them, but anyone visiting Orlando in ANY supposed off-season will realize that the tourism industry in Orlando has worked very hard to ensure that off-season in Orlando is no worse than mud season anywhere else.  Just because you are not interested in Orlando, does not mean that the vast majority of timeshare owners are also not interested.  To the contrary, a large percentage do visit, and many make a return trip, which is often not true of many other top destinations.

Edited to add:

If we look at the history of "points" system within RCI, we can look back at RCI South Africa, which was seemed to be similar to what RCI will roll out soon - exchange of whole weeks, but with points values (though that system was not dynamic).  

Then we saw private points systems among developer groups, where owners at those resorts could have a low-value week deposited, and raid the last-minute exchanges.  Those developers had systems where their members could deposit a week worth only just enough to get the exchange they wanted - no change back from RCI, but they did in essence get change back within their own system.

Regular RCI members clammored for change, so RCI introduced GPN which ended up turning into RCI Points.  To get the developer to cooperate, it looks like RCI bowed to developer pressure in terms of how the system was created, how it was marketed, and how points values were set.  They probably thought everybody was going to jump in and join Points, but the developers got in the way.  Why they thought they needed the developers, I don't know, but perhaps it had something to do with allowing split-week usage, and the fact that such usage would require changes at the resort level.  

Now we might finally get what RCI should have done when they first considered a points system - move everybody in at once, but still trade in whole weeks.  RCI has little trouble pleasing the middle 80% of owners - it's the owners on the two extremes that are difficult.  RCI doesn't gain much (except the exchange fee) by facilitating trades for the lower 10%, if they are contantly allowing them to trade up, except perhaps the good will of the resort who don't end up with a slew of defaulted weeks.  At the other end, RCI wants a way to entice the top 10% to deposit their weeks.  Points could have worked, except for the greedy resorts that insisted on a huge fee.   Perhaps with a system where those top 10% do want to deposit, RCI will see that there is more money in the fees from the chain of exchanges brought about by those weeks, than from renting them (we can hope anyway).  I don't like that rentals have been legitimized, but they have.  I have several weeks on deposit, and am familiar with their relative exchange power.  Given that we should be able to search both in terms of "what can I exchange for" and "what is available overall" we should be able to tell fairly quickly if anything has changed when it's implemented.

The developers don't want points, because they will have to be honest about the relative value of their weeks.  Few places live up to the value the developer sales force implies, so this change is not in their best interest.  It's also not in the best interest of those selling points conversions (what exactly will I get for that $3,000 that I won't get out of this new system? is it worth $3,000?) So Kudos to RCI at least for willing to go against their wishes.  I'm sure they will still be renting out weeks, but maybe they've finally discovered that the individual members are more important to their business model than the developers.  That would be a welcome change.


----------



## e.bram

LisaP:
Actually the Cape even in January is not that frigid or snowy. And having an oceanfront unit has it's own attraction, listening to the sound of the waves breaking on the beach. I rather be there than in a drained swamp filled with hokey commercialized tourist attractions.


----------



## rickandcindy23

e.bram said:


> LisaP:
> Actually the Cape even in January is not that frigid or snowy. And having an oceanfront unit has it's own attraction, listening to the sound of the waves breaking on the beach. I rather be there than in a drained swamp filled with hokey commercialized tourist attractions.



To each his own. :rofl: We get away from the cold and go to the swamp in the winter.


----------



## e.bram

Cindy:
Why not go to the beach?
They exist in FL.


----------



## Carolinian

''Value'' in timeshare exchange is created by two things and two things only:
1) supply of that week in that resort / resort area
2) demand for that week in that resort / resort area
Any other aspect is merely a driver of one of these two fundamental factors.

In an exchange system, ''value'' should not be created artificially but left to the workings of the real market - supply and demand.  When an exchange company puts its thumb on the scales and starts injecting other artificial factors, that is when the exchange system becomes fraudulent.

Offseason weeks most places trade into much of the year in overbuilt areas simply because they have similar supply / demand curves.  If RCI tries to repeal the economic laws of supply and demand by artificial numbers, then they have a dishonest exchange system.

An exchange company is not giving anyone a ''trade up'' when they allow exchanges between weeks with similar supply / demand curves.  That is an even trade.




timeos2 said:


> This ia and has been a critical item always touted by the current weeks defenders. It is up to the RESORTS to provide a value for the money for these poor native value weeks NOT RCI/other owners to artificially give them value through trade. If it's a bad weather season then have on site amenities to provide value in poor weather. If it is a area that simply "closes down" for a few months each year then don't sell those those weeks and eat the fees by raising the usable weeks fees to cover the basic costs.  Find a way to squeeze value out of dog time and it can be marketed and at east a portion of the costs covered. Expecting a  third party - RCI, II, whatever group - to give it value has never been a real answer although apparently many resorts felt that was all they needed to survive.
> 
> Welcome to the real world where the owners/resorts have to fend for themselves not expect handouts from unrelated third parties to give their resort/use time value. You should get out what you put in and in the case of the truly bad use times such as January beach weeks they had better have something more than just a simple unit/week to deposit as that by itself has less than zero value in trade. That RCI / II recognizes that and doesn't give value for nothing is simple economics of survival for all.


----------



## bilfbr245

*Changes in Timeshare Fundamentals*

This in response to John's post above (442), as well as related posts about RCI renting deposited weeks.  There was never any way that RCI could have been legally prevented from renting deposited weeks, except by contract, and clearly they have not contracted not do to so.  The offer a service to the public, define it, and we choose whether or not to deal with them.  

I agree with Michael's post.  RCI's obligation is to offer weeks in trade for the deposit. Once you deposit the week, it is not yours any more, and they are not stealing it by renting it.  

Some people who fault RCI compare the situation now to the time when was RCI was managed by Mrs. DeHaan, a very impressive business woman, and an even more impressive philanthropist.  But the fundamentals of the timeshare industry have changed drastically since that time.  Back then money was flowing freely in the industry.  Developers were making a ton of money.  RCI was the glue that connected it.  Developers had every incentive to load RCI with free inventory as a way to get customers into the store.  People with the bluest of blue weeks could trade up very well.

But what ever happened to all those deposited blue weeks?  I own four units at the Samoset, and one of the weeks is a blue winter week.  We love going there as a midwinter retreat about an hour from home, but clearly the demand is not strong. I can remember in the early nineties seeing almost vacant parking lots, and very few lights at night  at this resort.  I was new to timeshare, and wondered how they could manage this way.  I asked around at the resort, and was told that most of the units had been exchanged.  Well, not really. They were not techically "exchanged," because nobody wanted them, but the owners probably got real good weeks in return.  The owners were happy, but it was all an illusion.  They did not trade their weeks.  In reality, they threw away their week, but got a free week as a promotion.

Today, money does not flow quite so freely in the timeshare industry.  But RCI is still obligated to offer a week someone wants for all those less desirable weeks.  If the week is not taken, it is lost, but RCI's obgligation remains.  The only way they can possibly make the system work is by working with resorts behind the scenes.  I suspect that some pretty ugly sausage making gets done.  But when I look at my situation from my perspective, I find I always trade up, and usually way up.  

Does this make me a shill for RCI?  I don't even like the company.  They are always annoying me bigtime.  But I am glad to get the good trades.


----------



## Carolinian

Wrong!  Ever heard of consumer protection laws?  Every state I know of has them.  Most of them, like North Carolina's are very broadly worded.  They provide that any ''act or practice'' in business that is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'' is ''unlawful'' and provides remedies.

The class action was filed under the New Jersey version of this statute.  Unfortunately, the class action attorneys were like so many of the slimeballs in that specialty and once they saw a big payday for themselves, they left their ''clients'' twisting in the breaze.

I have always advocated a different legal approach.  Use the same statute, but the remedies provided for a state AG consumer protection suit.  The AG has a lot of very useful tools that a private attorney in a class action would not have.  One of those is the ability to conduct discovery prior to even filing the lawsuit.  I would love to see a state AG serve some subpoenas on RCI and haul in their records and execs for some very thorough questioning on RCI's slimy and dishonest rental practices.  Then using that info they can craft a civil complaint that is right to the point.  The best thing is that state AG's cannot be bought off with a legal fee payday like class action slimeballs. They want the publicity from winning the case.




bilfbr245 said:


> This in response to John's post above (442), as well as related posts about RCI renting deposited weeks.  There was never any way that RCI could have been legally prevented from renting deposited weeks, except by contract, and clearly they have not contracted not do to so.  The offer a service to the public, define it, and we choose whether or not to deal with them.
> 
> I agree with Michael's post.  RCI's obligation is to offer weeks in trade for the deposit. Once you deposit the week, it is not yours any more, and they are not stealing it by renting it.
> 
> Some people who fault RCI compare the situation now to the time when was RCI was managed by Mrs. DeHaan, a very impressive business woman, and an even more impressive philanthropist.  But the fundamentals of the timeshare industry have changed drastically since that time.  Back then money was flowing freely in the industry.  Developers were making a ton of money.  RCI was the glue that connected it.  Developers had every incentive to load RCI with free inventory as a way to get customers into the store.  People with the bluest of blue weeks could trade up very well.
> 
> But what ever happened to all those deposited blue weeks?  I own four units at the Samoset, and one of the weeks is a blue winter week.  We love going there as a midwinter retreat about an hour from home, but clearly the demand is not strong. I can remember in the early nineties seeing almost vacant parking lots, and very few lights at night  at this resort.  I was new to timeshare, and wondered how they could manage this way.  I asked around at the resort, and was told that most of the units had been exchanged.  Well, not really. They were not techically "exchanged," because nobody wanted them, but the owners probably got real good weeks in return.  The owners were happy, but it was all an illusion.  They did not trade their weeks.  In reality, they threw away their week, but got a free week as a promotion.
> 
> Today, money does not flow quite so freely in the timeshare industry.  But RCI is still obligated to offer a week someone wants for all those less desirable weeks.  If the week is not taken, it is lost, but RCI's obgligation remains.  The only way they can possibly make the system work is by working with resorts behind the scenes.  I suspect that some pretty ugly sausage making gets done.  But when I look at my situation from my perspective, I find I always trade up, and usually way up.
> 
> Does this make me a shill for RCI?  I don't even like the company.  They are always annoying me bigtime.  But I am glad to get the good trades.


----------



## jjmanthei05

timeos2 said:


> RCI weeks should be looked at as a last resort of any type of trade  at this point due to the deplorable rules they have managed to establish for it's use.
> I'm with Carolinian and Cindy on this one - RCI should be legally prohibited from renting weeks deposited for trade. They aren't, now they never will be and we're to blame if we feed that rental monster as it is helping to kill timeshare value especially for the lower end times that make up 80% of all timeshare time available.  Horrible situation.



I think the only way to get RCI or II away from the rental game (which I know is probably impossible now) is to have exchange fees paid on deposit instead of exchange. In the current system, if 5% of all deposits go unused because they are dogs or close to check-in, RCI loses the exchange fee on that percentage while still doing the work of posting and managing that deposit. I'm not here defending rci, I am just pointing out their supply and demand issues. The scary part would be what their exchange fees would need to be to hold their current profit margins without rentals. 

Jason


----------



## Carolinian

One of the big things that would help discourage the wide open diversion of inventory to rentals would be to update all the state timeshare exchange disclosure laws that exchange companies must comply with to include rentals.  All of these laws were written years ago when exchange companies were more honest in their operations and the spectre of rentals of exchange deposits had not yet reared its ugly head.  They need to be updated to cover that change in the landscape.

How would this discourage exchange company rentals?  Simple, the disclosure guides have to be provided by developers to new timeshare purchasers.  If a new buyer sees the info on rentals, it is going to cool his jets about buying.  Developers will start to scream, and this is the main voice that RCI and II listen to.  If II can provide, as is likely now, a disclosure guide based on past behavior that is less threatening for a developer at a sales table, there will be a giant sucking sound as all the developers abandone RCI to jump to II.  RCI will have no choice but to alter course to also provide a record of rentals where that disclosure guide does not give developers heartburn.

What sort of things should the disclosure guide compel RCI to disclose?  I would suggest:
1) For each resort, the percentage of deposited weeks that were a) confimed as exchanges, b) rented to members, and c) rented to non-members, together with the highest and lowest rental price actually charged and paid for a week at each resort.
2) The average rental price charged by RCI for rentals in each state and country.
3) Systemwide, the number of weeks in the past year a) confirmed as exchanges, 2) rented to members, and 3) rented to non-members

There should also be a requirement that an summary of this information be disclosed in large enough type that it is likely to be read, and that disclosure signed by the buyer.

I think letting in the sunlight of disclosure will kill RCI's rental program graveyard dead.


----------



## Dave599

Carolinian said:


> One of the big things that would help discourage the wide open diversion of inventory to rentals would be to update all the state timeshare exchange disclosure laws that exchange companies must comply with to include rentals.  All of these laws were written years ago when exchange companies were more honest in their operations and the spectre of rentals of exchange deposits had not yet reared its ugly head.  They need to be updated to cover that change in the landscape.
> 
> How would this discourage exchange company rentals?  Simple, the disclosure guides have to be provided by developers to new timeshare purchasers.  If a new buyer sees the info on rentals, it is going to cool his jets about buying.  Developers will start to scream, and this is the main voice that RCI and II listen to.  If II can provide, as is likely now, a disclosure guide based on past behavior that is less threatening for a developer at a sales table, there will be a giant sucking sound as all the developers abandone RCI to jump to II.  RCI will have no choice but to alter course to also provide a record of rentals where that disclosure guide does not give developers heartburn.
> 
> What sort of things should the disclosure guide compel RCI to disclose?  I would suggest:
> 1) For each resort, the percentage of deposited weeks that were a) confimed as exchanges, b) rented to members, and c) rented to non-members, together with the highest and lowest rental price actually charged and paid for a week at each resort.
> 2) The average rental price charged by RCI for rentals in each state and country.
> 3) Systemwide, the number of weeks in the past year a) confirmed as exchanges, 2) rented to members, and 3) rented to non-members
> 
> There should also be a requirement that an summary of this information be disclosed in large enough type that it is likely to be read, and that disclosure signed by the buyer.
> 
> I think letting in the sunlight of disclosure will kill RCI's rental program graveyard dead.



I agree with what your saying 100 % but lets show that potential buyer the WHOLE story not half of it, in all that information lets also show all the stats for units RENTED by the owner that never end up in any trading companies exchange pool. Lets show that buyer that his chances of ever getting Florida Keys on an exchange at Christmas time is just about zero because the owners rent them themselves for 2000 bucks a pop. Lets open all the windows and let the sun shine in.......

Dave


----------



## Carolinian

That's irrelevent. Owners can do what they want with their weeks.  An exchange company has a quasi-fiduciary responsibility to use weeks deposited for exchange for that purpose and not loot them from the exchange pool to rent them to the general public.

In any event, the disclosure guides are prepared by the exchange company from its records, and that data would not be in their records.

Why are you so defensive of exchange companies, and particularly RCI?




Dave599 said:


> I agree with what your saying 100 % but lets show that potential buyer the WHOLE story not half of it, in all that information lets also show all the stats for units RENTED by the owner that never end up in any trading companies exchange pool. Lets show that buyer that his chances of ever getting Florida Keys on an exchange at Christmas time is just about zero because the owners rent them themselves for 2000 bucks a pop. Lets open all the windows and let the sun shine in.......
> 
> Dave


----------



## "Roger"

If we want to talk about disclosure and be relevant to what is at issue in this thread (the opening title to the thread is "RCI Weeks to offer value transparency"), then lets talk about the need for new timeshare buyers to have access to the information that they need to make an intelligent purchasing decision. A key piece to having informed buyers is that they be told the real trading value of what they are about to buy. 

For ten years and thousands of posts, Carolinian has opposed this.  Talk about lack of disclosure!  During this period, developers have reaped in millions of dollars in profits by misleading buyers into thinking that their pink weeks in overdeveloped areas would allow them to trade into any timeshare in the world.

Being totally relevant to the OP in this thread, let us celebrate that fact that at last there will be disclosure about trading power.


----------



## Carolinian

Wrong.  I have consistly supported a system that is either 1) fully disclosed, including the mechanism for setting numbers, or 2) fully non-disclosed.  What I have always opposed is the half-assed partially disclosed system, where they tell you a final number but not the methodoloy of how they came up with it, backed up by data to show that it was honest.

Knowing something of the background of Barrier Island Station's politicking RCI for their RCI Points numbers, I am well aware of the opportunities to cook the books if an exchange company relies on a secret formula.  What a partially disclosed system does is give all developers a huge incentive to do the very same backroom politicking that BIS did.

For thousands of posts, you have supported RCI using a secret formula to concoct their numbers for an exact number system.




"Roger" said:


> If we want to talk about disclosure and be relevant to what is at issue in this thread (the opening title to the thread is "RCI Weeks to offer value transparency"), then lets talk about the need for new timeshare buyers to have access to the information that they need to make an intelligent purchasing decision. A key piece to having informed buyers is that they be told the real trading value of what they are about to buy.
> 
> For ten years and thousands of posts, Carolinian has opposed this.  Talk about lack of disclosure!  During this period, developers have reaped in millions of dollars in profits by misleading buyers into thinking that their pink weeks in overdeveloped areas would allow them to trade into any timeshare in the world.
> 
> Being totally relevant to the OP in this thread, let us celebrate that fact that at last there will be disclosure about trading power.


----------



## scooooter

When, exactly, is it that we will be able to see what is in the RCI bank for inventory before we have to bank our week?  Does anyone know?  Thank you! Rhonda


----------



## Dave599

Carolinian said:


> That's irrelevent. Owners can do what they want with their weeks.  An exchange company has a quasi-fiduciary responsibility to use weeks deposited for exchange for that purpose and not loot them from the exchange pool to rent them to the general public.
> 
> In any event, the disclosure guides are prepared by the exchange company from its records, and that data would not be in their records.
> 
> Why are you so defensive of exchange companies, and particularly RCI?



No that's not irrelevant, I didn't say owners can't do whatever they want with there units however if I was buying a unit I would like to know the entire story not half of it and owner rentals has a monstrous effect on whats available to exchange into. Not just for rci but all the exchange companies......

Not true in this perfect world the resorts/hoa's could make available stats on rentals and whether those rentals came from owners or exchange companies, how many there were and what percentage were exchanges, company rentals and owners rentals (what an eye opener that would be) the data could be compiled and made available on all the resort and exchange company websites. Now were getting to see the WHOLE picture and not just the negative half you want to make available.......

I like to see both sides of the story and not just the parts that favor my point of view, I am more open minded then that, I could ask you the same question, why do you hate the exchange companies and particularly rci, Its almost like you feel the exchange companies should be some sort of co-op or non profit organizations rather then profit driven companies they are Hey I hear there is a boat leaving tomorrow for Cuba you might like to pack a bag and get the system you seem to want  

In the long run its a moot point, timeshare today is not what it was 20 years ago and timeshare 10 years from now won't be anything like it is today. Its my guess 10 years from now all the "big" timeshare companies will be gone, there may be a few tiny companies trying to eek out a living doing exchanges but the masses will have two choices, use your unit or rent it and then rent to go someplace else. Driven by members renting there units online, c"est la vie that's the capitalist system ..... I just did a yahoo search for timeshare rentals and got 136 MILLION HITS, timeshare and exchanging today is being destroyed by member rentals not by the companies and the very small percentage of rentals they do compared to the owners.....

Dave


----------



## e.bram

Dave:
Isn't the point system going to save the TS industry?(tongue in cheek)


----------



## siesta

this will either be the next best thing since sliced bread, or it will crash and burn worse than ::insert crude analogy here::


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> Wrong.  I have consistly supported a system that is either 1) fully disclosed, including the mechanism for setting numbers, or 2) fully non-disclosed.  What I have always opposed is the half-assed partially disclosed system, where they tell you a final number but not the methodoloy of how they came up with it, backed up by data to show that it was honest.
> 
> Knowing something of the background of Barrier Island Station's politicking RCI for their RCI Points numbers, I am well aware of the opportunities to cook the books if an exchange company relies on a secret formula.  What a partially disclosed system does is give all developers a huge incentive to do the very same backroom politicking that BIS did...


When I go to Walmart (actually, I do not go to Walmart, but that is a different story), no one tells me how they set the prices.  I am also willing to bet that there were some deals cut with their suppliers including who gets featured display space.  (This is certainly done in the grocery business.) Ultimately, however, I decide whether the product is worth what I am about to pay without knowing how that price was set.

Ah, but timesharing is different.  

So apparently when the new system is instituted, we will need sticky on this board warning prospective buyers "DO NOT LET A TIMESHARE SALESPERSON TELL YOU THE TRADING POWER OF WHAT S/HE IS ABOUT TO SELL YOU!  YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW THAT NUMBER WAS SET!!"  

After all, if a young couple, in the midst of a sales pitch, were to find that their pink week in Branson which is selling for $20,000 will hardly trade for anything that they want, that is worthless  information since they don't know how that trading power was set.

I stand behind my consistent claim that hiding trading power has been nothing but a huge bone to help developers and it has allowed them to sell tens, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars in marginal timeshare units at inflated prices. Revealing trading power is a huge step toward reforming the industry and TUGGERs should start demanding that all exchange companies do the same.


----------



## rickandcindy23

"Roger" said:


> I stand behind my consistent claim that hiding trading power has been nothing but a huge bone to help developers and it has allowed them to sell tens, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars in marginal timeshare units at inflated prices. Revealing trading power is a huge step toward reforming the industry and TUGGERs should start demanding that all exchange companies do the same.



II trading power is above board, from what I can see.  AND you can test exchange any week before submitting your deposit.  If you test your week and see that your trading power has gone down due to a reduction in unit quality (that happened to me, so that is why I mention it), you can choose another exchange company for your week. 

With RCI your deposit is "final."  They tell you it's final, and you cannot take it back.  

What other trading companies are you talking about with respect to trading power?  SFX is the only one you cannot see every single deposit they have.  SFX is the most ridiculous exchange company of them all, simply because you have NO CLUE what your week can and cannot see.  

RCI looks transparent compared to SFX, but we have many SFX apolgizers here who would say I am wrong.  I was told they would take my Foxrun prime summer weeks, but they would not give them the same trading power as my Hawaii weeks.  I didn't give my Foxrun weeks to SFX, because all I need is a massive reduction in trading power from what my Hawaii weeks seem to get.  I am so NOT impressed with SFX.  I will try them one or two more times, but after that, I will not be using them at all.


----------



## Rene McDaniel

Dave599 said:


> why do you hate the exchange companies and particularly rci, Its almost like you feel the exchange companies should be some sort of co-op or non profit organizations rather then profit driven companies
> 
> Its my guess 10 years from now all the "big" timeshare companies will be gone, there may be a few tiny companies trying to eek out a living doing exchanges but the masses will have two choices, use your unit or rent it and then rent to go someplace else.
> 
> I just did a yahoo search for timeshare rentals and got 136 MILLION HITS, *timeshare and exchanging today is being destroyed by member rentals* not by the companies and the very small percentage of rentals they do compared to the owners.....
> 
> Dave



Dave, 

For over 12 years now, we've owned a couple of Southern Calif. beach weeks (floating, high season) at a small no-name resort that we bought for trading.  In the early years we got great trades from RCI and were very happy. At 12 months out we would call our floating resorts, get our weeks & deposit every single week with RCI. Then, about 4 or 5 years ago RCI did a major change of their trade power algorithms and narrowed the window of which weeks would have "good" trade power. Suddenly, beach deposits for the last 2 weeks of August, deposited 12 mos. ahead, had absolutely 0 trade power.  When I called RCI I was told "the demand for the last 2 weeks of August was not as high as the rest of summer".  I agreed, but "it's not zero either, it is still summer at the beach".  

On Tug, we figured out that RCI was now only giving only about 7 prime weeks of summer high trading power (last week June, all of July, 1st week of August).  After a couple of years of watching my 2 August "dog weeks" see practically NOTHING in the RCI spacebank, the only good trade I could ever make was back into my own resort.  So, in essence, I wasted 2 years searching, plus 2 exchange fees, to only trade back into my own resort (could have saved the 2 RCI fees & just used my weeks!)

The following year, again, I was not able to get a prime July week at my home resort, and ended up with late August weeks. This time, thanks to TUG,  I was wiser.  I had heard about redweek.com and rented my weeks for $950/week & used that money to book exactly WHERE and exactly WHEN we wanted to vacation that year. No arguing & pleading with RCI about the value of my week, no more waiting and hoping with ongoing searches never coming through.  

This past summer we traded our July week with RCI, and rented our August week for cash.  That allowed us to do a summer RCI exchange into New York City, and rent our 2nd week on Expedia right in the heart of Washington DC (which has no timeshares).

When RCI changes its trade power algorithms and makes it difficult to get good exchanges, owners become more cautious about depositing their prime weeks with RCI.  After all, RCI "is like a box of chocolates.  You never know what's inside."  Maybe you'll deposit and it'll work out alright, or maybe it won't.

For all the money we spend on timeshares, owners like a SURE thing, not a crap shoot.  For the 5 weeks we now own, that usually means a combination of using what we own, some renting, and some exchanging (but now with a variety of exchange companies).  *I believe that exchange companies that treat their members like a valued customer, will continue to grow & thrive over the next 10 years. * Timeshare owners still want to make trades.

--- Rene


----------



## timeos2

"Roger" said:


> When I go to Walmart (actually, I do not go to Walmart, but that is a different story), no one tells me how they set the prices.  I am also willing to bet that there were some deals cut with their suppliers including who gets featured display space.  (This is certainly done in the grocery business.) Ultimately, however, I decide whether the product is worth what I am about to pay without knowing how that price was set.
> 
> Ah, but timesharing is different.
> 
> So apparently when the new system is instituted, we will need sticky on this board warning prospective buyers "DO NOT LET A TIMESHARE SALESPERSON TELL YOU THE TRADING POWER OF WHAT S/HE IS ABOUT TO SELL YOU!  YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW THAT NUMBER WAS SET!!"
> 
> After all, if a young couple, in the midst of a sales pitch, were to find that their pink week in Branson which is selling for $20,000 will hardly trade for anything that they want, that is worthless  information since they don't know how that trading power was set.
> 
> I stand behind my consistent claim that hiding trading power has been nothing but a huge bone to help developers and it has allowed them to sell tens, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars in marginal timeshare units at inflated prices. Revealing trading power is a huge step toward reforming the industry and TUGGERs should start demanding that all exchange companies do the same.



AMEN Roger! The hidden system has forever favored those "in the know" be it savvy buyers, developers, exchange companies - but not the average person snagged off the street and convinced to buy into the great system. How some can continue to say it "protects" buyers is way beyond me. That, plus a feeling that the "old days" were somehow nirvana- far from the truth - feeds the idea that a change to more open valuation is somehow bad for owners/resorts. It is simply exposing what is already being done and given the members at least a glimmer of insight & small foot in the door toward control.  More information is always better even if some of it isn't what you'd like to hear. Those that "suffer" from disclosure have to react in a positive way to prevent issues. It is up to them - not the third parties they work with - to create and maintain values as that is what they sold. 

This will be interesting to see.


----------



## bnoble

> After all, RCI "is like a box of chocolates. You never know what's inside." Maybe you'll deposit and it'll work out alright, or maybe it won't.


But this is exactly one of the things the new system is expected to address---as I understand it, we will know how many "credits" any particular deposit will be worth if we were to deposit it that day, without having to deposit it.  Likewise, you can search *all* inventory to see what sorts of exchanges that credit level will get you.

It's hard to say that's a *bad* thing compared to the "deposit and hope" model that we have now.


----------



## bankr63

*Not enough sunlight*



Carolinian said:


> What sort of things should the disclosure guide compel RCI to disclose?  I would suggest:
> 1) For each resort, the percentage of deposited weeks that were a) confimed as exchanges, b) rented to members, and c) rented to non-members, together with the highest and lowest rental price actually charged and paid for a week at each resort.
> 2) The average rental price charged by RCI for rentals in each state and country.
> 3) Systemwide, the number of weeks in the past year a) confirmed as exchanges, 2) rented to members, and 3) rented to non-members
> 
> I think letting in the sunlight of disclosure will kill RCI's rental program graveyard dead.



I think you missed one key piece.  It would also have to be very time specific.  The charge against RCI is skimming prime weeks at prime resorts.  This disclosure could still be cooked by skimming only the very best weeks and leaving all the dogs to make it look like there was lots if inventory available.  That is what (apparently) happens now, lots of inventory but not the desirable weeks.  Disclosing annual numbers would still gloss it over with the evening out effects of time.

Yes I am aware that very few prime weeks are ever deposited, but when they are, this disclosure should make it very clear when they have been skimmed to rental.


----------



## bankr63

Dave599 said:


> Driven by members renting there units online, c"est la vie that's the capitalist system ..... I just did a yahoo search for timeshare rentals and got 136 MILLION HITS, timeshare and exchanging today is being destroyed by member rentals not by the companies and the very small percentage of rentals they do compared to the owners.....
> 
> Dave



Notwithstanding Rene's posts, I would venture that the majority of the rentals posted are by people who do not want to use at all.  Therefore they were never exchange candidates.  Yes, some owners have resorted to what both you and Rene describe, but I would wager that more of those rentals are posted by people just hoping to pocket some money to cover the MF for a year that they are not using.

Is the system not MORE damaged by the multitudes here who leverage their one week into multiple weeks in various ways (including rentals from RCI).  That does as much or more to deplete the pool of available exchange weeks.

Perhaps if we all agreed to stop paying RCI for rentals and ONLY using the company for exchanges, then the situation would begin to change.  I know many posters here have taken advantage of the extra vacations.  And yes, this is completely rhetorical, but I figure I'm not the only one wearing the rose colored glasses.


----------



## bccash63

I have been reading/following this thread but have not posted before.  This sounds like the model that redweek went to for exchange.  It is also very similar to the current RCI pts model--just wondering how it will actually differ from the current RCI pts program.  On one side I like knowing exactly what I will need to exchange but on the other I am one of the late-night surfers who have benefited from 'trading up'.  I have done very well in RCI with my 2br LO SDO.  With the new model I forsee having to deposit it as a 2 br to get some of the trades I have gotten with it--all 2 br GC.  I only own odd-yr so may try II with the Starwood Preference next time around.  The other thing I foresee losing is the ability to trade a blue studio/28k Wyndam pts for 1-2 br 'red' Wyndham units with an internal trading preference.   For the general public who does not understand the ins/outs of trading as well as Tuggers do-- I think they will be happy with the change--for the average Tugger who is more savy I don't foresee this as making most of us very happy.  We are good at 'working' the system:ignore:  IMHO Dawn


----------



## bankr63

bnoble said:


> But this is exactly one of the things the new system is expected to address---as I understand it, we will know how many "credits" any particular deposit will be worth if we were to deposit it that day, without having to deposit it.  Likewise, you can search *all* inventory to see what sorts of exchanges that credit level will get you.
> 
> It's hard to say that's a *bad* thing compared to the "deposit and hope" model that we have now.



I dunno.  If you follow Rene's train, then when you check and see that your unit is worthless, you will not deposit at all, and go over to II to deposit.  The whole RCI system really could collapse, since there will be no dog weeks in the system, and all the good weeks will be skimmed for the rental business.  What's the membership number for II...

Just an after thought, perhaps RCI should convert to a full rental business, and give us all income back.  Then the choice becomes to let RCI broker a rental, and handle all of the headaches and overhead, or let II manage an exchange for us.  Then the damned private rentals would probably dry up!


----------



## timeos2

bankr63 said:


> I dunno.  If you follow Rene's train, then when you check and see that your unit is worthless, you will not deposit at all, and go over to II to deposit.  The whole RCI system really could collapse, since there will be no dog weeks in the system, and all the good weeks will be skimmed for the rental business.  What's the membership number for II...
> 
> Just an after thought, perhaps RCI should convert to a full rental business, and give us all income back.  Then the choice becomes to let RCI broker a rental, and handle all of the headaches and overhead, or let II manage an exchange for us.  Then the damned private rentals would probably dry up!



And through what "magic" does a worthless small motel unit beach week in January at RCI become a valuable, "quality" timeshare deposit with II? It is just as bad there and believe me they have all they need and far more of those already in their system.  The value is what it is - disclosing it merely confirms what up to now far too many players tried to hide from the masses to benefit themselves. Finally the small player will get a peek behind Oz's curtain for real. It will hurt those that have learned how to manipulate the horrible system we have now but help the vast majority to be better informed.


----------



## jjmanthei05

bankr63 said:


> I dunno.  If you follow Rene's train, then when you check and see that your unit is worthless, you will not deposit at all, and go over to II to deposit.  The whole RCI system really could collapse, since there will be no dog weeks in the system, and all the good weeks will be skimmed for the rental business.  What's the membership number for II...
> 
> Just an after thought, perhaps RCI should convert to a full rental business, and give us all income back.  Then the choice becomes to let RCI broker a rental, and handle all of the headaches and overhead, or let II manage an exchange for us.  Then the damned private rentals would probably dry up!



That would probably end up like Wyndham extra holidays where you get charged 40% as their commission and if it doesn't rent too bad for you.

Jason


----------



## MichaelColey

I keep forgetting to mention...

I was on the phone with RCI yesterday morning about something else and I asked the guide if she knew when the new changes were going to be implemented.  She said that she thought it was supposed to be in the November upgrades (which has been mentioned here before).


----------



## scooooter

Likewise said:
			
		

> When is this change supposed to happen??  Does anyone know? I have a week to bank but don't want to do it if they are going to be opening this up soon so that you can actually see what is in the bank before you deposit your week.  Thank you! Rhonda


----------



## Mel

timeos2 said:


> And through what "magic" does a worthless small motel unit beach week in January at RCI become a valuable, "quality" timeshare deposit with II? It is just as bad there and believe me they have all they need and far more of those already in their system.  The value is what it is - disclosing it merely confirms what up to now far too many players tried to hide from the masses to benefit themselves. Finally the small player will get a peek behind Oz's curtain for real. It will hurt those that have learned how to manipulate the horrible system we have now but help the vast majority to be better informed.


Those who manipulate the system now will simply have to learn to manipulate the new system - there's always a way to do so.  But you are right - this doesn't change the value of the week, and I'm not sure it's going to hurt the developers that much either.

Back when we purchased our first week (and subsequently rescinded and bought resale down the street), There were tiers of prices - all weeks paid the same maintenance fees, but the best weeks had a higher buy-in price.  What might happen is a shift in the way those prices are set.  Sell the highest value weeks for a lot of money, whenever possible.  For those that balk, offer a cheaper buy-in with a lower value week, only make the expensive week a bit more expensive, and make the "cheap" week really cheap.  The idea is to move the weeks, and get someone else to pay the maintenance fees.

Consider the model:

Hot Red week - highest value in RCI's new system 
$40,000 buy-in, maintenace fee $600 - 
net cost per year assuming 3% lost interest = $1800

White week, worth half the value of the Hot Red week
$10,000 buy-in, maintenace fee $600 - net cost $900
*half the annual cost for half the value

Blue week, worth one quarter the value of Hot Red
Give it away, maintenance fee $600 - net cost $600
1/3 for 1/4 of the value, but no initial expenses.

this really isn't any different than the way weeks were sold 20 years ago.  Assuming their commission is a percentage of the take, the sales staff will always want to sell those top weeks, but if they get a bonus based on the total number of weeks sold, I bet some would push the lesser weeks to get volume.


----------



## bankr63

timeos2 said:


> And through what "magic" does a worthless small motel unit beach week in January at RCI become a valuable, "quality" timeshare deposit with II? It is just as bad there and believe me they have all they need and far more of those already in their system.  The value is what it is - disclosing it merely confirms what up to now far too many players tried to hide from the masses to benefit themselves. Finally the small player will get a peek behind Oz's curtain for real. It will hurt those that have learned how to manipulate the horrible system we have now but help the vast majority to be better informed.



I agree completely, but human nature is what it is.  If the owner of said dog week knows it is worthless on RCI, they are going to try their luck elsewhere.   People will always pick chance over guaranteed failure.  It forms the interesting thought that perhaps II will be forced to disclose values as well to stop that flood of dog weeks that may desperately flee to II.


----------



## Carolinian

There you go again!

This broken record of the RCI apologists just doesn't play.  Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can readily see the enormous differences that make this analogy laughable.

When you walk into Walmart, you do not deposit your goods for them to value and then utilize that value to acquire some of their goods on the way out.  If and when Walmart starts operating like a timeshare exchange company, comparing them would be valid, but not until then.  Walmart acquires its goods by purchasing them with its own money, so of course we do not care about that process.  A timeshare exchange company, however, operates on a quasi-fiduciary basis by convincing timeshare owners to give it our goods - timeshare weeks - free, on a promise to provide us like goods later for an administrative fee.  We have to be able to trust that the valuation in and the valuation out are honest.  Whole different ballgame, hoss! As President Reagan said - trust, but verify.

And given RCI's antics recently, particularly its looting of prime weeks from the exchange system to rent for its own financial benefit, believeing what an RCI spokesman says is akin to beleiving what a timeshare salesman says.  But as PT Barham said, there is a sucker born every second.





"Roger" said:


> When I go to Walmart (actually, I do not go to Walmart, but that is a different story), no one tells me how they set the prices.  I am also willing to bet that there were some deals cut with their suppliers including who gets featured display space.  (This is certainly done in the grocery business.) Ultimately, however, I decide whether the product is worth what I am about to pay without knowing how that price was set.
> 
> Ah, but timesharing is different.
> 
> So apparently when the new system is instituted, we will need sticky on this board warning prospective buyers "DO NOT LET A TIMESHARE SALESPERSON TELL YOU THE TRADING POWER OF WHAT S/HE IS ABOUT TO SELL YOU!  YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW THAT NUMBER WAS SET!!"
> 
> After all, if a young couple, in the midst of a sales pitch, were to find that their pink week in Branson which is selling for $20,000 will hardly trade for anything that they want, that is worthless  information since they don't know how that trading power was set.
> 
> I stand behind my consistent claim that hiding trading power has been nothing but a huge bone to help developers and it has allowed them to sell tens, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars in marginal timeshare units at inflated prices. Revealing trading power is a huge step toward reforming the industry and TUGGERs should start demanding that all exchange companies do the same.


----------



## Carolinian

If it happens to be on the beach in St. Barths, then it would actually be pure gold, much more valuable than anything in any of the overbuilt areas.

If it happens to be in Florida, particularly the Keys or Sanibel / Captiva, it would also have enormous value.

The three most important aspects of real estate, if you remember, are ''location, location, and location''.

The main bad actor manipulating the system right now is RCI - with rentals, squirrelly points numbers padded to pander to developers, and generic charts that allow Points to raid Weeks.  Total transparency is necessary to make the main bad actor in the process honest.



timeos2 said:


> And through what "magic" does a worthless small motel unit beach week in January at RCI become a valuable, "quality" timeshare deposit with II? It is just as bad there and believe me they have all they need and far more of those already in their system.  The value is what it is - disclosing it merely confirms what up to now far too many players tried to hide from the masses to benefit themselves. Finally the small player will get a peek behind Oz's curtain for real. It will hurt those that have learned how to manipulate the horrible system we have now but help the vast majority to be better informed.


----------



## Carolinian

Typical RCI timing.  Right when HOA m/f bills are going out, so they will whack the HOA's with bailouts of unhappy campers.  Why can't these stinkers just wait a few months until after most have paid their m/f's?




MichaelColey said:


> I keep forgetting to mention...
> 
> I was on the phone with RCI yesterday morning about something else and I asked the guide if she knew when the new changes were going to be implemented.  She said that she thought it was supposed to be in the November upgrades (which has been mentioned here before).


----------



## Dave599

Carolinian said:


> There you go again!
> 
> This broken record of the RCI apologists just doesn't play.  Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can readily see the enormous differences that make this analogy laughable.
> 
> When you walk into Walmart, you do not deposit your goods for them to value and then utilize that value to acquire some of their goods on the way out.  If and when Walmart starts operating like a timeshare exchange company, comparing them would be valid, but not until then.  Walmart acquires its goods by purchasing them with its own money, so of course we do not care about that process.  A timeshare exchange company, however, operates on a quasi-fiduciary basis by convincing timeshare owners to give it our goods - timeshare weeks - free, on a promise to provide us like goods later for an administrative fee.  We have to be able to trust that the valuation in and the valuation out are honest.  Whole different ballgame, hoss! As President Reagan said - trust, but verify.
> 
> And given RCI's antics recently, particularly its looting of prime weeks from the exchange system to rent for its own financial benefit, believeing what an RCI spokesman says is akin to beleiving what a timeshare salesman says.  But as PT Barham said, there is a sucker born every second.



Quite right very much like a broken record, its really simple if you don't like it don't join, if you come not to like it quit, you agree to the rules when you sign up (unless your really stupid and don't read the rules first) but for the love of God stop whining about it.

RCI Terms and Conditions (available on the website to anyone)

G. Member agrees and acknowledges that any
deposited Vacation Time may be used by RCI for any
commercially reasonable purpose, including but not
limited to the satisfaction of Exchange Requests by
Members, for inspection visits, promotions, rental, sale,
marketing or for other purposes at RCI’s sole discretion,
including use in other exchange or accommodation
programs. RCI may at any time, dispose of Vacation
Time that is not the subject of a exchange confirmation
sixty (60) days prior to the start date of that Vacation
Time.

It DOES NOT say anywhere here that rci agrees to make every deposited week available for exchange until they sit empty. My 5 year old could understand this wheres the issue..............

I assume that a similar clause exists for II and all the others.............

case closed .............

Dave


----------



## Carolinian

My, my, getting REAL defensive about RCI's slimy practices aren't we??

Burying some bad aspect in the fine print of T&C's do not protect a company when its more obvious statements imply something different.  In fact, far from protecting the company, they may very well be the smoking gun in establishing that a company's practices are ''deceptive'' or ''unfair'' under state consumer protection laws.

Most people signing up for RCI are not given anything in a readable form to consider before signing up from what I have seen.  RCI's involvement in rentals should be in big letters on the front page so every prospective member sees it.

RCI also dishonestly added the word ''rental'' by just slipping it in online without any real notice whatsoever to members.  If that is not both deceptive and unfair, I do not know what is!

Also, you might want to look up the meaning of the term ''contract of adhesion'', and if you can find it the extensive discussion of the application of that concept to RCI's T&C a few years ago at The Timeshare Beat.  Who knows, you might just learn something!





Dave599 said:


> Quite right very much like a broken record, its really simple if you don't like it don't join, if you come not to like it quit, you agree to the rules when you sign up (unless your really stupid and don't read the rules first) but for the love of God stop whining about it.
> 
> RCI Terms and Conditions (available on the website to anyone)
> 
> G. Member agrees and acknowledges that any
> deposited Vacation Time may be used by RCI for any
> commercially reasonable purpose, including but not
> limited to the satisfaction of Exchange Requests by
> Members, for inspection visits, promotions, rental, sale,
> marketing or for other purposes at RCI’s sole discretion,
> including use in other exchange or accommodation
> programs. RCI may at any time, dispose of Vacation
> Time that is not the subject of a exchange confirmation
> sixty (60) days prior to the start date of that Vacation
> Time.
> 
> It DOES NOT say anywhere here that rci agrees to make every deposited week available for exchange until they sit empty. My 5 year old could understand this wheres the issue..............
> 
> I assume that a similar clause exists for II and all the others.............
> 
> case closed .............
> 
> Dave


----------



## rickandcindy23

Dave, it didn't used to be that way, and that is the point.  That clause was added much later, though who knows when? 

A TUG member here was hoping to get a week from HTSE that is sitting online right now, and HTSE wouldn't just rent it to them.  They said it was a deposit from a member and was available for exchange only.  

This little company knows it's not okay to rent exchanges.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> Most people signing up for RCI are not given anything in a readable form to consider before signing up from what I have seen.  RCI's involvement in rentals should be in big letters on the front page so every prospective member sees it.
> 
> RCI also dishonestly added the word ''rental'' by just slipping it in online without any real notice whatsoever to members.  If that is not both deceptive and unfair, I do not know what is!
> 
> Also, you might want to look up the meaning of the term ''contract of adhesion'', and if you can find it the extensive discussion of the application of that concept to RCI's T&C a few years ago at The Timeshare Beat.  Who knows, you might just learn something!


If people are not reading the T&C before depositing to RCI, that's not RCI's fault.  Becoming a member doesn't give RCI any rights to your property, only you depositing it does.  I find it hard to believe that we should be protecting people who don't make any effort to learn about an exchange company before giving up access to the week - and worse that it's somehow RCI's fault that they have NEVER read the T&C in the several years they have been members.  

As for contracts of adhesion, there is nothing wrong with them, as long as they don't go too far.  If there was no other way to use your timeshare, then yes, RCI's contact would go to far.  But we all have other options - as shown by the number of people that use those other options.  If their contact is deceptive to the point of being unfair, why hasn't the court required RCI to change it.  Even if the plaintiffs in the lawsuit came to a settlement with RCI, in a class action the court still has to approve that settlement.

The complaint was that people wanted to know the value of their week before they deposit it - that's exactly what we are being given.

The complaint was that RCI Points members had an unfair advantage in taking last-minute availability for low cast - now we will have that same option.

You even argue that Roger's example of shopping at Walmart doesn hold water - but it does.  Maybe he should have made it an example of buying a gift card to Walmart.  When you walk in the door, you know what Walmart's prices are, you can choose to spend your money there, buy a gift card, or go elsewhere.  It really doesn't matter where Walmart got their products, or how.  Most RCI members don't care where RCI got their "product" either, as long as RCI carries what they want.

Please explain how seeing how RCI creates valuation matters.  When someone considers making a deposit of their week, RCI will tell them its value.  If the value is too low, they don't deposit.  If RCI wants their deposit, they will have to increase the value.  If RCI gets too many deposits, they will need to decrease the value.  If the overvalue a given resort, nobody will want to exchange in - if RCI doesn't then rent that inventory (these are not the rentals everybody is complaining about), they will sit empty and RCI makes NO money off them.  Is that truly in RCI's best interest?  How?

Walmart does the same thing.  Some items have a very small markup, with little profit (electronics for instance).  Others have a huge markup (clothing, toys).  Just because Walmart strong-armed a manufacturer to reduce their price 20% below what every other retailer pays, doesn't mean Walmart is going to reduce your price by that much - they will reduce it enough to convince you to buy it at their store, not more.


----------



## "Roger"

I guess I am totally puzzled by Carolinian's response to my post.  Is he really suggesting that the young couple being offered a $20,000 timeshare is better off not knowing the trading power of the unit - that if they are not told how the trading power was set, any information about its worth is worse than no information at all. To me, the key piece of information is that thet are about to buy a dog of a trader, not how someone decided that a pink week in an oversold area is a dog.  Maybe if someone else could help out here and explain this to me.  (...and I am really lookingfor someone else to try to explain this.)


----------



## bilfbr245

In my view it is too much of a stretch to claim that consumer protection laws would be invoked by the current practices of RCI.  Possibly at some point in the transition from the good old days to the present arrangement RCI might have been a little clearer.  I can see how maybe some lawyers could huff and puff and get a weak consent decree out of something like this. But the current situation could not be more clear. Just because you disagree with a company's business model does not mean that consumer protection laws are invoked, or that the company's  practices are unfair, deceptive or misleading.  As I understand it, RCI's business model is as follows:

When you deposit a week, it is ours.  We can do anything we want with it.  In return, we will give you another week.  We will not tell you how we got this week. We do not guarantee that you will get a week in return that will satisfy you, but it is possible that you will get a week more valuable than we week you deposit.  Trades are subject to our method of determining trade power.  The method is a trade secret.

I do not believe that there is anything unlawful about this business model as long as it is clear, which I believe it is.  The model some people seem to prefer is as follows:

We operate as clearing house on behalf of our members.  All deposits are retained for exchange by members.  We provide maximum transparency so that you can determine how much your deposit will have toward potential exchanges before depositing your unit.

That might be a nice model, but there is no way it could be mandated by law.  RCI is not a government agency that we get to vote on.  Also, in my opinion, this second model is not a viable business model.  I am not sure that a company could make a profit with it given the fundamentals of the timeshare industry today, as opposed to 20 years ago.  In my view, the only way that RCI can make a profit is by managing the inventory in the back room.  Unseemly maybe, but the fundamental question is not how they do it, but whether they can consistently offer sufficiently good trades to keep their customers.


----------



## Dave599

rickandcindy23 said:


> Dave, it didn't used to be that way, and that is the point.  That clause was added much later, though who knows when?



I have no doubt that you are absolutely correct, but that clause is the reality today, yesterday is gone forever, remissness about it if you want but we need to live in the here and now. That clause is the now whether you like it or not, whether you can work with it or not is up to you, if you can't, use a different system.......



rickandcindy23 said:


> A TUG member here was hoping to get a week from HTSE that is sitting online right now, and HTSE wouldn't just rent it to them.  They said it was a deposit from a member and was available for exchange only.



I applaud this company and they are in my opinion the future of timeshare "exchanging" and will likely be all that is left to exchange through in a dozen years. If they can survive, they must limit what they take very carefully to only super high demand, otherwise they run the risk of being "stuck" with a lot of junk weeks no one wants and no business model to compensate for them.....

Rci like many can see the way the wind is blowing and they need to adapt there business model to keep profitable today and in what timeshare will be in the future. At a corporate level they are no longer even called rci they are "Wyndham Exchange and Rentals" Notice the "Rentals" rci knows where the profits are, what timeshare is becoming and they are doing exactly what they need to do to stay profitable for there shareholders, its what the ceo makes 7 million a year for.

From a company description on a stock market story :

About Wyndham Worldwide Corporation
As one of the world's largest hospitality companies, Wyndham Worldwide offers individual consumers and business-to-business customers a broad suite of hospitality products and services across various accommodation alternatives and price ranges through its premier portfolio of world-renowned brands. Wyndham Hotel Group encompasses nearly 7,200 hotels and approximately 607,000 hotel rooms worldwide. Wyndham Exchange & Rentals offers leisure travelers, including its 3.8 million members, access to over 80,000 vacation properties located in approximately 100 countries. Wyndham Vacation Ownership develops, markets and sells vacation ownership interests and provides consumer financing to owners through its network of over 155 vacation ownership resorts serving over 820,000 owners throughout North America, the Caribbean and the South Pacific. Wyndham Worldwide, headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., employs approximately 25,000 employees globally. 

If I was buying today I would make sure I was buying into a group be it Hilton, Shell, Bluegreen, GPR  whatever at least then I would know I would at least be able to trade within my group. I wouldn't walk from an orphan resort I would run because I don't think it will be long before your choices will be Go to it or try and rent it.........

Dave


----------



## Timmuscat

*I Like RCI*

I admit it, I'm a Wyndham owner who likes RCI.  In the last two years, I have made four trades with RCI using generic Wyndham deposits.  All were done with ongoing searches.  In all four exchanges, I received back far more in value than I deposited into RCI.  

Let's be honest with ourselves.  We trade into RCI because we want more for less.  In my trades, I have received more for less.  If that changes in the future, then I'll stop depositing into RCI.  It's really that simple for all of us.  

I agree that RCI's rental practices are dissapointing.  Obviously, I would like to see all deposits made available for exchange.  I also appreciate that RCI was likely a much better deal in past years.  But I live in the present, and I am more than satisifed with the trades I've received.  It takes time, patience and flexibility, but ongoing searches can still achieve great results.  In fact, I'm not looking forward to the alleged RCI changes in November.  How will generic Wyndham deposits be valued?  Will the internal preference remain for trading back into Wyndam resorts?  Given these uncertainties, I would rather the system remain in its present form.  

Tim


----------



## Carolinian

Somehow the fact that most RCI members do not suffer through pages of fine print every time they make a deposit.  Somehow the fact that you try to justify their sneaky slipping of one word into their T&C does not surprise me either.

As to the RCI lawsuit and sellout / setttlement, I refer you to the long thread on that, but then you were defending RCI on that thread, too, so you should already be familiar with it.  

A court will void a contract of adhesion in most instances.  Plaintiffs' sellout lawyers never let it get that far.

The complaint was NOT about people wanting to know the value of their weeks.  It was about RCI looting the exchange system to divert weeks to rent to the general public.

The RCI Points raiding issue is not primarily about last minute weeks.  It is about unfair generic points grids.



Mel said:


> If people are not reading the T&C before depositing to RCI, that's not RCI's fault.  Becoming a member doesn't give RCI any rights to your property, only you depositing it does.  I find it hard to believe that we should be protecting people who don't make any effort to learn about an exchange company before giving up access to the week - and worse that it's somehow RCI's fault that they have NEVER read the T&C in the several years they have been members.
> 
> As for contracts of adhesion, there is nothing wrong with them, as long as they don't go too far.  If there was no other way to use your timeshare, then yes, RCI's contact would go to far.  But we all have other options - as shown by the number of people that use those other options.  If their contact is deceptive to the point of being unfair, why hasn't the court required RCI to change it.  Even if the plaintiffs in the lawsuit came to a settlement with RCI, in a class action the court still has to approve that settlement.
> 
> The complaint was that people wanted to know the value of their week before they deposit it - that's exactly what we are being given.
> 
> The complaint was that RCI Points members had an unfair advantage in taking last-minute availability for low cast - now we will have that same option.
> 
> You still don't get it on the WalMart issue,  Please reread my post, and maybe you WILL. Walmart is never valuing your goods you are depositing with them, so it is totally unlike a timeshare exchange company.
> 
> You even argue that Roger's example of shopping at Walmart doesn hold water - but it does.  Maybe he should have made it an example of buying a gift card to Walmart.  When you walk in the door, you know what Walmart's prices are, you can choose to spend your money there, buy a gift card, or go elsewhere.  It really doesn't matter where Walmart got their products, or how.  Most RCI members don't care where RCI got their "product" either, as long as RCI carries what they want.
> 
> Please explain how seeing how RCI creates valuation matters.  When someone considers making a deposit of their week, RCI will tell them its value.  If the value is too low, they don't deposit.  If RCI wants their deposit, they will have to increase the value.  If RCI gets too many deposits, they will need to decrease the value.  If the overvalue a given resort, nobody will want to exchange in - if RCI doesn't then rent that inventory (these are not the rentals everybody is complaining about), they will sit empty and RCI makes NO money off them.  Is that truly in RCI's best interest?  How?
> 
> Walmart does the same thing.  Some items have a very small markup, with little profit (electronics for instance).  Others have a huge markup (clothing, toys).  Just because Walmart strong-armed a manufacturer to reduce their price 20% below what every other retailer pays, doesn't mean Walmart is going to reduce your price by that much - they will reduce it enough to convince you to buy it at their store, not more.


----------



## Carolinian

Same with DAE.  They used to have a Swiss office, operated as a franchise.  When that Swiss office was caught renting out DAE exchange inventory, they were booted out of the DAE organization for that transgression.




rickandcindy23 said:


> Dave, it didn't used to be that way, and that is the point.  That clause was added much later, though who knows when?
> 
> A TUG member here was hoping to get a week from HTSE that is sitting online right now, and HTSE wouldn't just rent it to them.  They said it was a deposit from a member and was available for exchange only.
> 
> This little company knows it's not okay to rent exchanges.


----------



## Carolinian

Maybe you ought to compare market share of RCI and II over the last few years. II has been on a steady upward path while RCI has been on a steady downward path.  II is growing a stable exchange company for the long term while RCI is doing quick fixes for the short term profit without any concern about what it is doing to their longterm viability.




Dave599 said:


> I have no doubt that you are absolutely correct, but that clause is the reality today, yesterday is gone forever, remissness about it if you want but we need to live in the here and now. That clause is the now whether you like it or not, whether you can work with it or not is up to you, if you can't, use a different system.......
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud this company and they are in my opinion the future of timeshare "exchanging" and will likely be all that is left to exchange through in a dozen years. If they can survive, they must limit what they take very carefully to only super high demand, otherwise they run the risk of being "stuck" with a lot of junk weeks no one wants and no business model to compensate for them.....
> 
> Rci like many can see the way the wind is blowing and they need to adapt there business model to keep profitable today and in what timeshare will be in the future. At a corporate level they are no longer even called rci they are "Wyndham Exchange and Rentals" Notice the "Rentals" rci knows where the profits are, what timeshare is becoming and they are doing exactly what they need to do to stay profitable for there shareholders, its what the ceo makes 7 million a year for.
> 
> From a company description on a stock market story :
> 
> About Wyndham Worldwide Corporation
> As one of the world's largest hospitality companies, Wyndham Worldwide offers individual consumers and business-to-business customers a broad suite of hospitality products and services across various accommodation alternatives and price ranges through its premier portfolio of world-renowned brands. Wyndham Hotel Group encompasses nearly 7,200 hotels and approximately 607,000 hotel rooms worldwide. Wyndham Exchange & Rentals offers leisure travelers, including its 3.8 million members, access to over 80,000 vacation properties located in approximately 100 countries. Wyndham Vacation Ownership develops, markets and sells vacation ownership interests and provides consumer financing to owners through its network of over 155 vacation ownership resorts serving over 820,000 owners throughout North America, the Caribbean and the South Pacific. Wyndham Worldwide, headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., employs approximately 25,000 employees globally.
> 
> If I was buying today I would make sure I was buying into a group be it Hilton, Shell, Bluegreen, GPR  whatever at least then I would know I would at least be able to trade within my group. I wouldn't walk from an orphan resort I would run because I don't think it will be long before your choices will be Go to it or try and rent it.........
> 
> Dave


----------



## Carolinian

Burying something in the T&C that contradicts what the company tries to project itself as is deceptive by definition.  And then you add in the RCI guides lying about their rentals whcih several Tuggers reported.

What is really needed is stautorily required disclosure of their rental activities, like they have been required to make disclosure of their exchange activities for years by state law.  That will either make them honest or run most of their developers over to II.





bilfbr245 said:


> In my view it is too much of a stretch to claim that consumer protection laws would be invoked by the current practices of RCI.  Possibly at some point in the transition from the good old days to the present arrangement RCI might have been a little clearer.  I can see how maybe some lawyers could huff and puff and get a weak consent decree out of something like this. But the current situation could not be more clear. Just because you disagree with a company's business model does not mean that consumer protection laws are invoked, or that the company's  practices are unfair, deceptive or misleading.  As I understand it, RCI's business model is as follows:
> 
> When you deposit a week, it is ours.  We can do anything we want with it.  In return, we will give you another week.  We will not tell you how we got this week. We do not guarantee that you will get a week in return that will satisfy you, but it is possible that you will get a week more valuable than we week you deposit.  Trades are subject to our method of determining trade power.  The method is a trade secret.
> 
> I do not believe that there is anything unlawful about this business model as long as it is clear, which I believe it is.  The model some people seem to prefer is as follows:
> 
> We operate as clearing house on behalf of our members.  All deposits are retained for exchange by members.  We provide maximum transparency so that you can determine how much your deposit will have toward potential exchanges before depositing your unit.
> 
> That might be a nice model, but there is no way it could be mandated by law.  RCI is not a government agency that we get to vote on.  Also, in my opinion, this second model is not a viable business model.  I am not sure that a company could make a profit with it given the fundamentals of the timeshare industry today, as opposed to 20 years ago.  In my view, the only way that RCI can make a profit is by managing the inventory in the back room.  Unseemly maybe, but the fundamental question is not how they do it, but whether they can consistently offer sufficiently good trades to keep their customers.


----------



## Brkian

Forgive me for not reading all 20 pages of posts, but can anybody tell me (or provide a link or reference) whether RCI has outlined what the new plan(s) may look like, or is this all still speculation dating back to March?  I'm on the verge of buying a Grand Pacific Seapointe unit and just want to know if there is new info for me to consider in my buying decision.


----------



## MichaelColey

Brkian said:


> Forgive me for not reading all 20 pages of posts, but can anybody tell me (or provide a link or reference) whether RCI has outlined what the new plan(s) may look like, or is this all still speculation dating back to March?


Details here:

http://app.rci.com/landing/InsideRCI/memenhancements/

Still lots of unknowns and guesses.


----------



## Bourne

Carolinian said:


> Maybe you ought to compare market share of RCI and II over the last few years. II has been on a steady upward path while RCI has been on a steady downward path.  II is growing a stable exchange company for the long term while RCI is doing quick fixes for the short term profit without any concern about what it is doing to their longterm viability.



Comparing RCI to II without RCI Points is like comparing RCI with two hands tied to its back. Those two systems are joined at the hips... FWIW, as of December 2009, RCI had 1000+ Points affiliated resorts with 730K+ confirmed exchanges. And it will grow at Week's cost because of the long term direction that RCI has taken. 

To keep things in perspective, *RCI points* itself(730K+) is nipping at the heels of II(840K+) when you look at regular exchanges. Even if we may not like the company, you gotta give credit where it is due.  

P.S. Added later... if anyone's keeping count...members accumulated *28,323,289,816 *RCI points in the system last year. That's 28 BILLION. Makes sense as that number divided by 740K+ exchanges comes to an average of 40K per exchange.


----------



## Bourne

If anyone cares... Registry Collection numbers...

LIMITED BY ATTACHMENTS - Moved to new thread

...and yes, for obvious reasons, the source of the data starts with a "D"..


----------



## Carolinian

RCI's numbers are for both systems combined, and your II number is low according to the article in Timesharing Today.




Bourne said:


> Comparing RCI to II without RCI Points is like comparing RCI with two hands tied to its back. Those two systems are joined at the hips... FWIW, as of December 2009, RCI had 1000+ Points affiliated resorts with 730K+ confirmed exchanges. And it will grow at Week's cost because of the long term direction that RCI has taken.
> 
> To keep things in perspective, *RCI points* itself(730K+) is nipping at the heels of II(840K+) when you look at regular exchanges. Even if we may not like the company, you gotta give credit where it is due.
> 
> P.S. Added later... if anyone's keeping count...members accumulated *28,323,289,816 *RCI points in the system last year. That's 28 BILLION. Makes sense as that number divided by 740K+ exchanges comes to an average of 40K per exchange.


----------



## Carolinian

Owners have ALWAYS rented weeks by themselves. The late Marvin Beard created a thriving business on the NC Outer Banks, Outer Banks Resort Rentals, way back in the early days of timesharing focused on the rental and resale of timeshare weeks, and that business continues under his successor.

As an HOA board member with the resale portfolio and continuing as HOA president, I made it a point to analyze our resorts records for trends in ownership.  I also discussed what I found with resort managers and HOA members at other OBX resorts to compare notes.  One thing I found was a long slow trend of decline in participation in exchange companies.  This predated the big changes at RCI, so that is not the cause.  Several other local resorts had noticed the same thing.  Our conclusion was that over time, as weeks change hands among individuals, the new buyers do not get the developer hype on exchanging and so tend to be more own to use oriented.

As to rentals, the percentage of owners who rented their weeks was relatively stable over time.  Of course, I cannot speak for the past three years when I have been working in Europe, but up until that time, there was no huge surge in rentals at this resort resulting from any recent changes in timesharing.  Other local resorts were not seeing that either.  The majority of renters were those who sometimes used their weeks and sometimes rented, but there were some who had rented every year going all the way back to the time the HOA took over control from the developer.  Some of them even had Outer Banks Resort Rentals mail m/f checks to the resort from their rental income.

I like to compare notes with management staff  and occaisionally when I am lucky enough to encounter them, HOA board members, at resorts I trade into.  The gradual decline in exchange participation over time is something that most resorts where I have had such converations have observed.

On the rental front, one resort I traded into in the UK was particularly interesting.  I have traded into that resort twice within a year, had some good chats on timeshare issues with management, was there one time on the weekend of an HOA board meeting and got invited for evening drinks with the board members and so had some interesting chats there, plus twice attended their welcome meetings for timeshare users in the morning of the second day. At those meetings, there was discussion of exchanging, and particularly very extensive discussion of it at the first of the two.  So I got a chance to get perspectives of management, board members, owners and and exchangers.  At this resort, there was a big perception that exchanging with RCI had gone downhill in a big way and that it was now very difficult to trade into a great many resorts that were much easier to get up until 5 or 6 years before.  The resort itself had started a rental program which was proving successful for those owners who had exchanged and no longer considered RCI a good exchange value.  There was an increase in membership and use of independents, particularly DAE (which is who I had exchanged in through myself).  There was also an increase in members who had formerly exchanged using their weeks themselves at the resort instead.  What was most interesting was the comments in the extensive discussion of exchanging at the first welcome meeting.  All the Brits present except one said they no longer gave any of their weeks in the UK to RCI, although all of them had at least once in the past. Those who had what they considered ''lesser'' weeks in places like the Canary Islands did still deposit those lesser weeks with RCI sometimes.  Some of them had used their timeshares in the past mostly for exchange, but now the consensus was that RCI exchanging had gone to the dogs.

My take on all of this is that moves from exchanging toward rentals is not consistant.  It seems to be happening some places but not in others.  Where it is happening, RCI has only inself and its new policies to blame for bringing on conditions where owners felt RCI no longer served their interests as an exchange company.  Personally, I like exchanging, so I hope more of the slack gets taken up by independent exchange companies than by people moving toward renting.




Dave599 said:


> I agree with what your saying 100 % but lets show that potential buyer the WHOLE story not half of it, in all that information lets also show all the stats for units RENTED by the owner that never end up in any trading companies exchange pool. Lets show that buyer that his chances of ever getting Florida Keys on an exchange at Christmas time is just about zero because the owners rent them themselves for 2000 bucks a pop. Lets open all the windows and let the sun shine in.......
> 
> Dave


----------



## Bourne

Carolinian said:


> RCI's numbers are for both systems combined, and your II number is low according to the article in Timesharing Today.



 These are not your cookie cutter RCI Weeks data available at will.  Look closely again. What I have posted is the elusive *standalone* RCi Points data on its own.

RCI weeks and RCI points data is not combined. These are the RCI weeks data that you have been referring to...


----------



## Bourne

Here are the II numbers for comparison. 

LIMITED BY ATTACHMENTS - Moved to new thread

For the record, II gets audited by E&Y and RCI by *D*eloitte. Both are reputable audit firms. The source of any data that Timesharing today publishes is coming from these firms or RCI/II itself.


P.S. Notice that II's deposited weeks are way low compared to actual exchanges. Gives you an idea of the % of "Request First" exchanges. Which I like, by the way...


----------



## rickandcindy23

I love II!  If there is something in Getaways, it's almost always also for exchange.  

But II does rent inventory, but it's likely developer and excess inventory from resorts and not exchanges.  

I have had some ongoing searches going with RCI and II for weeks now, and II wins, hands down, for having the exact thing I need.  I am so impressed with II, and I supposedly have a great trader through RCI.  I am trying for some difficult trades with II and even my studio at Sheraton Broadway Plantation picked up a 2 bedroom February week at Four Seasons Aviara.  Imagine my shock to see a 2 bedroom, when I could only request a 1 bedroom or smaller.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> Owners have ALWAYS rented weeks by themselves....
> 
> I like to compare notes with management staff  and occaisionally when I am lucky enough to encounter them, HOA board members, at resorts I trade into.  The gradual decline in exchange participation over time is something that most resorts where I have had such converations have observed.
> 
> On the rental front, one resort I traded into in the UK was particularly interesting.  I have traded into that resort twice within a year, had some good chats on timeshare issues with management, was there one time on the weekend of an HOA board meeting and got invited for evening drinks with the board members and so had some interesting chats there, plus twice attended their welcome meetings for timeshare users in the morning of the second day. At those meetings, there was discussion of exchanging, and particularly very extensive discussion of it at the first of the two.  So I got a chance to get perspectives of management, board members, owners and and exchangers.  At this resort, there was a big perception that exchanging with RCI had gone downhill in a big way and that it was now very difficult to trade into a great many resorts that were much easier to get up until 5 or 6 years before.  *The resort itself had started a rental program which was proving successful for those owners who had exchanged and no longer considered RCI a good exchange value.  There was an increase in membership and use of independents, particularly DAE (which is who I had exchanged in through myself).  There was also an increase in members who had formerly exchanged using their weeks themselves at the resort instead.  .*  What was most interesting was the comments in the extensive discussion of exchanging at the first welcome meeting.  All the Brits present except one said they no longer gave any of their weeks in the UK to RCI, although all of them had at least once in the past. Those who had what they considered ''lesser'' weeks in places like the Canary Islands did still deposit those lesser weeks with RCI sometimes.  Some of them had used their timeshares in the past mostly for exchange, but now the consensus was that RCI exchanging had gone to the dogs.
> 
> My take on all of this is that moves from exchanging toward rentals is not consistant.  It seems to be happening some places but not in others.  Where it is happening, RCI has only inself and its new policies to blame for bringing on conditions where owners felt RCI no longer served their interests as an exchange company.  Personally, I like exchanging, so I hope more of the slack gets taken up by independent exchange companies than by people moving toward renting.


I agree that RCI's rental play a part in this, but it also sounds like the members themselves (and their resort) and pushing it further in the same direction,  The resort is renting weeks for the owners - reducing the inventory given to RCI.  Owners are exchanging through other smaller exchange companies - reducing the inventory given to RCI.  Owners are not depositing their good weeks to RCI, and only depositing their "lesser" weeks - reducing the overall quality of weeks available through RCI.  At how many other resorts are owners doing the same?  If these owners are not depositing to RCI, then RCI is not renting out their weeks.  So how is RCI to blame for the lack of inventory?  The real issue is that the whole timehsare model has changed as the we moved into the "information age."  Yes, owners have always been able to rent, but it has not always been as easy.  Many owner didn't rent in the past because they didn't want to pay 30% or more commission - but with the internet they are able to rent their weeks out themselves and keep more of the money.    I think this is a much bigger "problem" in relation to the value RCI can offer exchangers.  RCI needs to change their model, and hopefully the new changes will do just that.  Perhaps if the new model produces more exchanges, and higher revenue from those exchanges, they won't feel the need to rent out so many weeks.


----------



## learnalot

Mel said:


> I agree that RCI's rental play a part in this, but it also sounds like the members themselves (and their resort) and pushing it further in the same direction,  The resort is renting weeks for the owners - reducing the inventory given to RCI.  Owners are exchanging through other smaller exchange companies - reducing the inventory given to RCI.  Owners are not depositing their good weeks to RCI, and only depositing their "lesser" weeks - reducing the overall quality of weeks available through RCI.  At how many other resorts are owners doing the same?  If these owners are not depositing to RCI, then RCI is not renting out their weeks.  So how is RCI to blame for the lack of inventory?  The real issue is that the whole timehsare model has changed as the we moved into the "information age."  Yes, owners have always been able to rent, but it has not always been as easy.  Many owner didn't rent in the past because they didn't want to pay 30% or more commission - but with the internet they are able to rent their weeks out themselves and keep more of the money.    I think this is a much bigger "problem" in relation to the value RCI can offer exchangers.  RCI needs to change their model, and hopefully the new changes will do just that.  Perhaps if the new model produces more exchanges, and higher revenue from those exchanges, they won't feel the need to rent out so many weeks.



Yes, I feel really bad for poor RCI...feeling like they have to rent out weeks just to make ends meet   It is RCI's heavy rental of exchange inventory that is hurting them as an exchange company, though it is probably increasing their bottom line, which is why they do it.  Well, they also do it because apparently they can.  

Other exchange companies will offer unbooked inventory at a discounted rental rate rather than letting it go unused, which I have no problem with.  But what I appreciate about the other companies is that most of them will let you book those weeks as an exchange as well.  That, to me is the most appropriate setup.  It addresses the issue of what to do with inventory no one is taking while preserving the integrity of the EXCHANGE process.  It is also something RCI does NOT do, as many have posted their experiencing of seeing something on the rentals side and unsuccessfully attempting to book it with one of their exchanges.


----------



## Mel

learnalot said:


> Yes, I feel really bad for poor RCI...feeling like they have to rent out weeks just to make ends meet   It is RCI's heavy rental of exchange inventory that is hurting them as an exchange company, though it is probably increasing their bottom line, which is why they do it.  Well, they also do it because apparently they can.
> 
> Other exchange companies will offer unbooked inventory at a discounted rental rate rather than letting it go unused, which I have no problem with.  But what I appreciate about the other companies is that most of them will let you book those weeks as an exchange as well.  That, to me is the most appropriate setup.  It addresses the issue of what to do with inventory no one is taking while preserving the integrity of the EXCHANGE process.  It is also something RCI does NOT do, as many have posted their experiencing of seeing something on the rentals side and unsuccessfully attempting to book it with one of their exchanges.



 But even if RCI did that, people would be yelling foul.  Assume that RCI gets some inventory from some sources other than member deposits (deposits from developers, inventory that has been used to something other than an exchange).  I hope we can all agree those weeks don't belong in the exchange pool, and RCI is entitled to rent them.  Now you are asking them to allow you to book one of those rental weeks as an exchange.  But to do that, either your week, or something else must be removed from the exhchange pool.  Since your week was already given to another exchanger, another equivalent week must be removed.  If RCI takes such a week, and rents it to somebody, are they not "renting a week deposited for exchange?"  You can't have it both ways - either RCI can allow weeks to flow both ways between rentals and exchanges, or they have 2 independant systems.  But if they have 2 independant systems, then don't complain that you can't exchange for weeks that they have available for rental only.

Remember also that those weeks that appear to be available as both may in fact be separate weeks; one (or more) in the rental pool, and others in the exchange pool.  We don't really know how many of any given week RCI has available - when we search online we only see that they have a certain number of types of weeks available.


----------



## Carolinian

It was RCI's degradation of its exchange system that led to owners seeking alternatives such as independent exchange companies and rentals.  RCI only has itself to blame for that.  When owners started bitching and moaning about problems with RCI exchanges, they HOA proactively did what made sense from their perspective and created an alternative which made the owners still see value in owning.  They would have had no reason to do that if RCI by its change in policies had not created unhappy owners.




Mel said:


> I agree that RCI's rental play a part in this, but it also sounds like the members themselves (and their resort) and pushing it further in the same direction,  The resort is renting weeks for the owners - reducing the inventory given to RCI.  Owners are exchanging through other smaller exchange companies - reducing the inventory given to RCI.  Owners are not depositing their good weeks to RCI, and only depositing their "lesser" weeks - reducing the overall quality of weeks available through RCI.  At how many other resorts are owners doing the same?  If these owners are not depositing to RCI, then RCI is not renting out their weeks.  So how is RCI to blame for the lack of inventory?  The real issue is that the whole timehsare model has changed as the we moved into the "information age."  Yes, owners have always been able to rent, but it has not always been as easy.  Many owner didn't rent in the past because they didn't want to pay 30% or more commission - but with the internet they are able to rent their weeks out themselves and keep more of the money.    I think this is a much bigger "problem" in relation to the value RCI can offer exchangers.  RCI needs to change their model, and hopefully the new changes will do just that.  Perhaps if the new model produces more exchanges, and higher revenue from those exchanges, they won't feel the need to rent out so many weeks.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Degradation, Shmeggradayshun.*




Carolinian said:


> It was RCI's degradation of its exchange system that led to owners seeking alternatives such as independent exchange companies and rentals.  RCI only has itself to blame for that.


There is no doubt in my mind that you are totally correct about that. 

However that may, the picture looks different to people who never heard of RCI, much less signed up, till after The Good Old Days were already over & done.  

Folks whose initial exposure came later are unlikely to notice the degradation as much as the old timers.  

No doubt RCI has stables of MBAs at work on advising the RCI suits on just how much degradation a critical mass of dues-paying members will tolerate before jumping ship & either (a) giving up on timeshare trades altogether or (b) taking their exchange business elsewhere. 

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


----------



## MichaelColey

AwayWeGo said:


> Folks whose initial exposure came later are unlikely to notice the degradation as much as the old timers.


That's the case with just about anything.

Disney's Dining Plan (and especially their Free Dining offer), for instance, used to be an absolutely incredible deal when it first started.  (I only started taking advantage of it a few years ago, so I've only personally experienced some of the degradations of benefits.)  I think when it originally started, you could get it for $35/night for adults and $10/night for kids and it included a table service, a counter service and a snack each day.  Table service meals included an appetizer, dessert and tip.

The price has gone up pretty much each year.
Tips and appetizers were removed 2-3 years ago.
More restaurants have become Signature (requiring 2 credits instead of 1).
They removed the second drink from counter service breakfasts for 2011.
For the free dining promotion, you used to be able to get the full dining plan even if you were staying at a value resort (for as little as $82/night).  With four in the room (especially if two were "juniors" [ages 10-17, considered adults with the dining plan]), you got more value than the room cost.  As of this year, you have to book a moderate (from $149/night) to get the full free dining and you only get quick service dining with a value resort.
So it's nothing like it used to be with higher prices and tips, appetizers and other things removed.  But it's still a good value to many.  For the roughly $45 that an adult pays per night for the plan, you can get up to about $75 worth of food.

I look at RCI the same way.  I know that it used to be better and they're doing some things that help them while hurting us, but I can still get excellent value out of RCI.  I exchanged a week that cost me $262 in maintenance fees plus a $179 exchange fee (so $441 total!!!) to get a 2BR DVC unit that a DVC owner would have paid $1200 in maintenance fees for, a DVC point renter would have paid $2500 for, and that a retail renter with a good discount would have paid $5000 for.  Obviously that's one of my better exchanges, but ALL of them have been a great value.


----------



## bnoble

Michael has the right idea.

There's no point to comparing Option One (today) to Option One (back then)---at least until time travel becomes possible.   You can't go back to "back then" and partake of what Option One was in the good old days.

Instead, the question has to be based on Option One (today) vs. Options Two (today), Three (today), and so on.

The timeshare game is *always* changing.  And, it has to---when folks discover something to leverage to get more value, eventually a provider discovers a way to monetize that lost value or so many people figure it out that the leverage eventually disappears.  The right strategies to make the most of your ownerships today were not the ones you used yesterday, and they won't be the ones you use tomorrow.  Kvetching about how yesterday's strategy doesn't work today gets you nothing other than a case of agita.


----------



## Carolinian

There were always some changes, to be sure, but the massive changes came from a different corporate culture that Cendant brought in when they took over RCI, and that is what has shaken things up.  

When a corporation makes large scale changes that upset the customer base, there are three approaches.  One is to fight them and try to get a reversal.  Another is to knuckle under and try to make the best of it.  The third is to seek a better alternative from either another competitor or just getting out of that activity.

The first approach can be shown by customers reaction some years ago to New Coke.  The company was forced to backpeddle and bring back Old Coke.  Also when USAirways a few years ago introduced a series of changes to their ff program, their customers organzed, calling themselves ''the cockroaches'' and in a spirited campaign against management's changes forced them to reverse course in about six weeks.  When Delta tried its own anti-customer changes in its ff program a few years ago under Rob Borden, Delta customers organized under the Save Sky Miles banner, wore protest buttons, handed out flyers to other passengers, ran ads in USA Today, put up billboards, etc.  It was a two year slog, but finally Delta caved in, fired Borden, and reversed the changes.  The website of that campaign is still up at www.saveskymiles.com 

Personally, my choice is to fight, because I believe RCI has been a great exchange company in the past, and returning to the true model would put them head and shoulders above their competitors and the obvious choice for timeshare exchanging.  I have never been the type to just knuckle under.  I was a Delta mid tier elite when the Borden changes happened and I wore my parachute man button and handed out leaflets to fellow passengers, as well as contributing for the advertising.  After a year or so, however, I moved on and comped my elite status over to Northwest.  Maybe I jumped too soon, although as it turned out, I found NW to be a better airline anyway.

That brings up the last option, which is move to a competitor.  That is largely what I have done.  I have not cancelled my RCI membership, as I remember the Delta example.  They may straighten things out eventually.  But I use it now mostly for cheap rentals.  Prior to the appearance of the spectre of Points Lite, I did keep one week at a time on deposit and used RCI a little for exchange.  I have been using DAE as an alternative for several years and gotten some great exchanges through them, and have now added SFX as well.

But as to the option of moving to a competitor, if we decide to go that direction, it is important not only to make the move personally but to be proactive through our HOA's and other timeshare contacts to try to migrate as many other owners there as we can.  That is only in our own interest to help build up competitors so our own exchange options will be maximized there.  Specifically, we need to push our resorts to dual affiliate with II and to provide members with information on the indepedent exchange companies.

There are always people who want to flack for corporate interests for whatever reason.  In the Save Sky Miles campaign, there were a handful of regular defenders of all things Delta on the Delta board at FlyerTalk.com no matter how badly they were hosing customers.   Those people were strangely silent when DL finally waved a white flag and caved in.

When part of the change from ''back then'' until ''today'' involves extremely shady practices like looting exchange deposits for either rentals to the general public or for preferences for Points members, those are things we should never just say ''ho. hum, that is the way things are''.  Those are outright frauds upon the system and need to be fought tooth and nail.


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> When part of the change from ''back then'' until ''today'' involves extremely shady practices like looting exchange deposits for either rentals to the general public or for preferences for Points members, those are things we should never just say ''ho. hum, that is the way things are''. Those are outright frauds upon the system and need to be fought tooth and nail.


Or a third option is to just change your own tactics to take advantage of their changes.  RCI Points has preference?  No problem, I have an RCI Points account and can PFD most of my weeks if necessary.  I can take advantage of that.  RCI rents some deposited weeks?  No problem, that means I can get some good rental deals from them without having to own as many weeks.  I can take advantage of that.


----------



## bankr63

Carolinian said:


> I have not cancelled my RCI membership, as I remember the Delta example.  They may straighten things out eventually.  But I use it now mostly for cheap rentals.





MichaelColey said:


> RCI rents some deposited weeks?  No problem, that means I can get some good rental deals from them without having to own as many weeks.  I can take advantage of that.



For all of us who take advantage of all these RCI cheap rentals, isn't it a bit hypocritical if we don't actually believe that RCI should be renting these weeks out?

How can we be incensed by it on the one hand, but gleeful about the great deals we get on the other?!?



Mel said:


> The real issue is that the whole timehsare model has changed as the we moved into the "information age."  Yes, owners have always been able to rent, but it has not always been as easy.  Many owner didn't rent in the past because they didn't want to pay 30% or more commission - but with the internet they are able to rent their weeks out themselves and keep more of the money.    I think this is a much bigger "problem" in relation to the value RCI can offer exchangers.  RCI needs to change their model, and hopefully the new changes will do just that.  Perhaps if the new model produces more exchanges, and higher revenue from those exchanges, they won't feel the need to rent out so many weeks.



However I fail to see how owners renting out their units because they don't want to vacation that year are the issue here at all, these units weren't going to be deposited for exchange anyway.  The ease of renting in the information age has certainly helped increase occupancy, and perhaps has decreased the ability of TS developers to sell for outrageous prices (but I can rent here for $x every year, why should I but for $yy,yyy.yy?)  It has also allowed owners to cover their MF when not using, making ownership a better proposition.

Now if the owner is renting out for $$$ and turning around and picking up one or more RCI rentals for $, there again it is the owners who are part of the problem.  Then who broke the system - RCI or the greedy owners?

I am not trying to be an RCI apologist, and would honestly be an II member if one of my resorts wasn't RCI exclusive, but perhaps some people don't need to walk much farther than the bathroom mirror to see where some of the blame for the degrading system lies...


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> There were always some changes, to be sure, but the massive changes came from a different corporate culture that Cendant brought in when they took over RCI, and that is what has shaken things up.
> 
> When a corporation makes large scale changes that upset the customer base, there are three approaches.  One is to fight them and try to get a reversal.  Another is to knuckle under and try to make the best of it.  The third is to seek a better alternative from either another competitor or just getting out of that activity.


I don't think anyone here has said that RCI has done no wrong.  What we've said over and over is that the changes were only partly RCI's fault, but also due to changes in the way we as members do business.

Do you honestly think if Chrystal DeHaan were to take over RCI, and try to revert things back to "the way they were." that she would be successful?  There have been too many changes outside of RCI's control to go back to the old ways.

Yes, the RCI Points program was designed to unfairly punish those who chose not to join - but it also unfairly punished those who did choose to join with the exhorbitant conversion fees.  They had to do something to convince people it was worth paying those fees.  Their mistake was in listening to the developers, and not realizing that we are probably close to reaching critical mass (and already have in some areas).  For some reason, RCI still seem the developers as their bread & butter, because they bring in new members - rather than realizing that the existing owners far outnumber the new owners by a large margin.

15 years ago, excess inventory was marketed as "escape" weeks to RCI members, but they were still rentals.  Most of those same weeks were also available as "bonus" weeks - weeks given most often by developers as an incentive for touring their resort or purchasing with them.  Developers touted the "bonus weeks" RCI offered if you would deposit your week each year.  They never told you that RCI wasn't in fact offering them, they were certificates controlled by the developers to offset the unsold week the developer was depositing.  

Our first few years of membership, we used more bonus weeks than exchange weeks, because we agreed to tour each of the resorts we visited (our first exchange netted a string of 3 bonus weeks), so we as members obviously benefitted.  The developers benefitted because their resorts were full, new prospects were seeing their resorts, and they had something to use as an incentive - something which they would otherwise end up "throwing away" if the rooms were not used. 

Fast forward to today.  Do developers deposit those unsold weeks with RCI?  I doubt it - and if they do, they don't want bonus week certificates, they want cash.  I haven't been offered a bonus week certificate in years, and I don't recall any recent presentations where developers offered then as proof that RCI values their weeks.

Add to that the model of online trading.  Read the thread about 2BR units, and tell me people who didn't take 2BR units 15 years ago still aren't taking them as exchanges.  We have 3 children, so any unit that sleeps 6 should be an OK exchange, though a 2BR is preferable.  When we called to do searches, RCI used to ask how many people were in your party, and offer you exchanges based on that number.  I'm sure they didn't offer a 2BR unit to a couple travelling alone, unless that was the only thing available.  We can be pretty sure the vacation guides were instructed to offer the smallest unit that met your needs, to preserve the larger unit for someone who couldn't use that studio or 1BR units.  Now we go online, and we see the 2BR or even 3BR unit, and most will take at least the 2BR.

By the same token, I can go online and spend 10 minutes searching all over the world, and see what my deposit pulls.  If I had to call, I certainly wouldn't be doing that on a daily basis.  But the result is more people exchanging online, and more people taking the best unit they can find - the planning process has changed from "what does RCI have where I want to travel" to "where can I travel that RCI has great units." 

This new change to to "points lite" as you call it, is in response to those changes.  If RCI can adapt to those changes, most of its members will be happy.  RCI rentals surely have had a impact, but I'm still not convinced their impact is rally that great.  And this change could also bring about changes to the way RCI handles its rentals.  If they balance the points correctly, it night be more in their interest to rent two moderate level weeks rather than a single high-demand week.  Right now they're limited by the total number of weeks they take out, under a new system they would be limited by the total value.  That could end up to our benefit as well.  If not, maybe more of us will abandon RCI.  But frankly, I have had better results with RCI than the other exchange companies, and unless that changes, I will stay with them.


----------



## rickandcindy23

There are fewer resorts being developed in Orlando, and isn't that odd?  The only resorts that have opened recently are the new Hilton Parc Soleil, which is developing pretty slowly, and Lakeshore Reserve by Marriott.  I cannot think of any other new ones, but maybe there are more?  

But 15-20 years ago, there were several new ones opening each year.  The slowdown started around ten years ago.  

Do you realize there are about 72 Orlando resorts in RCI alone?  And if you need summer or holiday dates, you better be in line a year ahead, no matter what trader you have.  So even though people say Orlando is overbuilt, it really isn't, because there aren't enough weeks to satisfy the summer and holiday Orlando visitors.


----------



## Carolinian

II largely kept the integrity of their program, and their exchanges confirmed line is marching steadily upward from 1993 to present (_Timesharing Today's _ chart starts in 1993, so I don't have data before that.  If they were succesful through maintaining program integrity RCI could, too.  Indeed, RCI changes led a number of developers like Fairfield, Worldmark, and Seasons to flee to II.  Seasons newsletter announcing the change to II had a great article delivering a withering broadside against RCI over rentals and points.  The only way Cendant got Fairfield and Worldmark back for RCI was to go out and buy the companies.





Mel said:


> I don't think anyone here has said that RCI has done no wrong.  What we've said over and over is that the changes were only partly RCI's fault, but also due to changes in the way we as members do business.
> 
> Do you honestly think if Chrystal DeHaan were to take over RCI, and try to revert things back to "the way they were." that she would be successful?  There have been too many changes outside of RCI's control to go back to the old ways.
> 
> Yes, the RCI Points program was designed to unfairly punish those who chose not to join - but it also unfairly punished those who did choose to join with the exhorbitant conversion fees.  They had to do something to convince people it was worth paying those fees.  Their mistake was in listening to the developers, and not realizing that we are probably close to reaching critical mass (and already have in some areas).  For some reason, RCI still seem the developers as their bread & butter, because they bring in new members - rather than realizing that the existing owners far outnumber the new owners by a large margin.
> 
> 15 years ago, excess inventory was marketed as "escape" weeks to RCI members, but they were still rentals.  Most of those same weeks were also available as "bonus" weeks - weeks given most often by developers as an incentive for touring their resort or purchasing with them.  Developers touted the "bonus weeks" RCI offered if you would deposit your week each year.  They never told you that RCI wasn't in fact offering them, they were certificates controlled by the developers to offset the unsold week the developer was depositing.
> 
> Our first few years of membership, we used more bonus weeks than exchange weeks, because we agreed to tour each of the resorts we visited (our first exchange netted a string of 3 bonus weeks), so we as members obviously benefitted.  The developers benefitted because their resorts were full, new prospects were seeing their resorts, and they had something to use as an incentive - something which they would otherwise end up "throwing away" if the rooms were not used.
> 
> Fast forward to today.  Do developers deposit those unsold weeks with RCI?  I doubt it - and if they do, they don't want bonus week certificates, they want cash.  I haven't been offered a bonus week certificate in years, and I don't recall any recent presentations where developers offered then as proof that RCI values their weeks.
> 
> Add to that the model of online trading.  Read the thread about 2BR units, and tell me people who didn't take 2BR units 15 years ago still aren't taking them as exchanges.  We have 3 children, so any unit that sleeps 6 should be an OK exchange, though a 2BR is preferable.  When we called to do searches, RCI used to ask how many people were in your party, and offer you exchanges based on that number.  I'm sure they didn't offer a 2BR unit to a couple travelling alone, unless that was the only thing available.  We can be pretty sure the vacation guides were instructed to offer the smallest unit that met your needs, to preserve the larger unit for someone who couldn't use that studio or 1BR units.  Now we go online, and we see the 2BR or even 3BR unit, and most will take at least the 2BR.
> 
> By the same token, I can go online and spend 10 minutes searching all over the world, and see what my deposit pulls.  If I had to call, I certainly wouldn't be doing that on a daily basis.  But the result is more people exchanging online, and more people taking the best unit they can find - the planning process has changed from "what does RCI have where I want to travel" to "where can I travel that RCI has great units."
> 
> This new change to to "points lite" as you call it, is in response to those changes.  If RCI can adapt to those changes, most of its members will be happy.  RCI rentals surely have had a impact, but I'm still not convinced their impact is rally that great.  And this change could also bring about changes to the way RCI handles its rentals.  If they balance the points correctly, it night be more in their interest to rent two moderate level weeks rather than a single high-demand week.  Right now they're limited by the total number of weeks they take out, under a new system they would be limited by the total value.  That could end up to our benefit as well.  If not, maybe more of us will abandon RCI.  But frankly, I have had better results with RCI than the other exchange companies, and unless that changes, I will stay with them.


----------



## Carolinian

If I was ever able to stomach points, it would be Hapimag, not RCI.  Hapimag's corporate history is a lot more trustworthy for members than RCI's since Cendant arrived.




MichaelColey said:


> Or a third option is to just change your own tactics to take advantage of their changes.  RCI Points has preference?  No problem, I have an RCI Points account and can PFD most of my weeks if necessary.  I can take advantage of that.  RCI rents some deposited weeks?  No problem, that means I can get some good rental deals from them without having to own as many weeks.  I can take advantage of that.


----------



## Carolinian

Orlando is a seasonal resort area, just like most of them, when it comes to timeshare demand.  It has its high, mid, and low seasons.  The thing is that with all the capacity, in its low season, it has a lot more space sitting empty that anywhere else.




rickandcindy23 said:


> There are fewer resorts being developed in Orlando, and isn't that odd?  The only resorts that have opened recently are the new Hilton Parc Soleil, which is developing pretty slowly, and Lakeshore Reserve by Marriott.  I cannot think of any other new ones, but maybe there are more?
> 
> But 15-20 years ago, there were several new ones opening each year.  The slowdown started around ten years ago.
> 
> Do you realize there are about 72 Orlando resorts in RCI alone?  And if you need summer or holiday dates, you better be in line a year ahead, no matter what trader you have.  So even though people say Orlando is overbuilt, it really isn't, because there aren't enough weeks to satisfy the summer and holiday Orlando visitors.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Carolinian said:


> Orlando is a seasonal resort area, just like most of them, when it comes to timeshare demand.  It has its high, mid, and low seasons.  The thing is that with all the capacity, in its low season, it has a lot more space sitting empty that anywhere else.



Seems to be the nature of being a resort near Disneyworld, where parents take their kids in the hot, humid summer, and those crazy holiday breaks.  My goodness, l would NOT want to be in Orlando, when every timeshare and hotel are feeled to the brim.  Sounds just awful to me.  I can just imagine but haven't experienced it.  If our kids insist on taking the grandkids during those breaks, they go without us, or I will stay in the timeshare and catch on my reading.

The new RCI system will not do me any favors, I am sure of it.  I am using my deposited weeks as quickly as possible.  I am not hanging around for the slaughter of my trading power.  I wish I hadn't bought my tiger traders now, because I doubt I can take advantage of them after November.  They will get bumped down, I am sure.  

Just watch RCI institute quality ratings like II and not fair like II.  They will probably keep everyone in Gold Crowns seeing the same, and the regular resorts won't have any trades up, unless we are willing to give up 3 prime summer for every off-season GC exchange.  

I am concerned about this system, and I hope RCI doesn't chase us away.  All of the people who pay the PCC's to take their timeshares off their hands were probably disillusioned about exchanging as it is.  RCI is at fault for much of it.    

How many more people will be using the PCC's after this system is rolled out?  At least someone will be happy.  

I hope RCI doesn't destroy what we have now, because seriously, we have adjusted way too many times.


----------



## bnoble

> Or a third option is to just change your own tactics to take advantage of their changes.


Once again, this Coley guy is onto something.

Companies don't exist to make me happy.  They are not obligated to treat all their customers fairly beyond what the law requires.  I don't expect that they will provide me value just because I do business with them.  Their job is to make money.  Sometimes, in the process of making money, they will also make me happy, provide me my fair share (or better), or deliver a lot of extra value.  When that happens, I'm happy to do business with them.  When it doesn't, I'll look elsewhere.  

And, putting my cards on the table, I don't really care all that much if other customers get the short end of the stick along the way.  After all, I own three resale timeshares, purchased for pennies on the dollar, but the three original owners were all effectively robbed blind buying them in the first place.

For me, the question is simple: is it still worth depositing my time with RCI, or should I do something else with it?  That's a question that each of us has to answer for our own situation.  For my particular circumstances, RCI delivers strong value.   That's not going to be true for everyone---and it might not even be true for *most* people.  They should take their business elsewhere.  If you want to take it elsewhere on principle rather than as a straight value proposition, that's fine too.  But, I don't feel obligated by anyone else's principles.  I'm in this for the affordable vacations.

What's more, it seems pretty clear to me that this move to value transparency is going to be an improvement in helping each of us answer that question.  If I'm understanding things correctly, we'll know what our prospective deposit will be worth before we commit it, and we'll know what sorts of other weeks RCI considers to be "comparable".  You can disagree with their notion of "comparable".  Many will, some passionately.  No problem.  Find some other way to put what you own to use that delivers better value, and do that instead of giving it to RCI.



> For some reason, RCI still seem the developers as their bread & butter, because they bring in new members - rather than realizing that the existing owners far outnumber the new owners by a large margin.


It would be interesting to know what fraction of RCI's membership comes through corporate accounts: Wyndham, DVC, etc.  I suspect it is significant.  And, for that segment, the developer still controls exchange company affiliation post-sale.



> I wish I hadn't bought my tiger traders


I think you are being unnecessarily pessimistic, but even so---you did this to yourself, with your eyes wide open.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*You Typed A Mouthful.*




bnoble said:


> Their job is to make money.


That hits the nail right on the head. 

Only way I can think of to restore anything like the dreamed of _Good Old Days_ would be to get the corporate suits to sell off RCI to a non-profit or not-for-profit entity that would then immediately recast all RCI operations for the benefit of the members instead of to advance the corporate parent's bottom line. 

In the overall scheme of things RCI is hardly more than a minor distraction & a major nuisance to the bigwigs sitting around the Wyndham boardroom.  Shouldn't be too hard talking them into selling off RCI to a non-profit exchange-only organization so they can get on with the business of profitably operating Baymont Inn & Suites & Days Inn & Hawthorn Suites & Howard Johnson & Knights Inn & Microtel & Ramada & Super 8 Motels & Travelodge & Wingate Inn & I don't know what-all.  

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


----------



## "Roger"

rickandcindy23 said:


> ...I wish I hadn't bought my tiger traders now, because I doubt I can take advantage of them after November.  They will get bumped down, I am sure....


I suppose if you were somehow personally cursed so that it was _just your _tiger traders that take a hit this could happen, but it seems unlikely.  (On the other hand, if you are personally cursed, help out the rest of us TUGGERs and tell us where we own so we can dump those places from our porfolio.   )

If RCI goes after all the tiger traders, then they are bumping up the mediocre resorts.  That is just what they cannot afford to do.  The tiger traders would no longer have any reason to stay in RCI.  These are the people RCI can least afford to lose.

"Well what happens if they bump everyone down?"  [Cindy did not ask this question, but it was a question that came up a lot when points was first introduced.]  Bumping "everyone" down is the same as not changing anything.  The better resorts will have fewer points to spend, but everything will cost less (since everything else got bumped down). In other words, the tigers have fewer points, but it cost less to trade for any of other resort. So they are no worse off.


----------



## Carolinian

They are bumping everyone down BUT THEMSELVES.  With the massive conflict of interest from rentals, they are skiming the best weeks for themselves.  That leaves less for the members.  Bootleg and Anon both told us that was happening from their access to RCI computers at work.



"Roger" said:


> I suppose if you were somehow personally cursed so that it was _just your _tiger traders that take a hit this could happen, but it seems unlikely.  (On the other hand, if you are personally cursed, help out the rest of us TUGGERs and tell us where we own so we can dump those places from our porfolio.   )
> 
> If RCI goes after all the tiger traders, then they are bumping up the mediocre resorts.  That is just what they cannot afford to do.  The tiger traders would no longer have any reason to stay in RCI.  These are the people RCI can least afford to lose.
> 
> "Well what happens if they bump everyone down?"  [Cindy did not ask this question, but it was a question that came up a lot when points was first introduced.]  Bumping "everyone" down is the same as not changing anything.  The better resorts will have fewer points to spend, but everything will cost less (since everything else got bumped down). In other words, the tigers have fewer points, but it cost less to trade for any of other resort. So they are no worse off.


----------



## Carolinian

Fortunately, businesses are bound by consumer protection laws which make unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce unlawful (almost a direct quote from the NC version of the statute).  So they are constrained by law and cannot contract themselves out of the requirements of consumer protection laws.  They are also bound by other more specific laws, such as exchange companies being bound by some of the timeshare laws of states.

When a business is a fiduciary, as an exchange company arguably is with our deposits, they are held in law to an even higher standard.

For most exchange companies, staying focused on the business plan is giving them steady success.  RCI, however, seems to have a corporate culture since Cendant took over that stresses short term profits over long term viability, and those may kill their golden goose and severely damage the viability of timesharing itself in the process.

As a longtime HOA board member, I particularly look at new RCI practices that undermine HOA's and there are lots of those.  Many here look only at what directly impacts their own ownerships.  They need to realize that when an HOA is kneecapped by RCI practices, it is going to come back to the owners at that resort to in various ways, such as rising m/f's to cover members who bailed out due to RCI changes.

From a company standpoint, they also need to realize that hosing customers tends to make the company lose customers.  That is not good for business.




bnoble said:


> Once again, this Coley guy is onto something.
> 
> Companies don't exist to make me happy.  They are not obligated to treat all their customers fairly beyond what the law requires.  I don't expect that they will provide me value just because I do business with them.  Their job is to make money.  Sometimes, in the process of making money, they will also make me happy, provide me my fair share (or better), or deliver a lot of extra value.  When that happens, I'm happy to do business with them.  When it doesn't, I'll look elsewhere.
> 
> And, putting my cards on the table, I don't really care all that much if other customers get the short end of the stick along the way.  After all, I own three resale timeshares, purchased for pennies on the dollar, but the three original owners were all effectively robbed blind buying them in the first place.
> 
> For me, the question is simple: is it still worth depositing my time with RCI, or should I do something else with it?  That's a question that each of us has to answer for our own situation.  For my particular circumstances, RCI delivers strong value.   That's not going to be true for everyone---and it might not even be true for *most* people.  They should take their business elsewhere.  If you want to take it elsewhere on principle rather than as a straight value proposition, that's fine too.  But, I don't feel obligated by anyone else's principles.  I'm in this for the affordable vacations.
> 
> What's more, it seems pretty clear to me that this move to value transparency is going to be an improvement in helping each of us answer that question.  If I'm understanding things correctly, we'll know what our prospective deposit will be worth before we commit it, and we'll know what sorts of other weeks RCI considers to be "comparable".  You can disagree with their notion of "comparable".  Many will, some passionately.  No problem.  Find some other way to put what you own to use that delivers better value, and do that instead of giving it to RCI.
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what fraction of RCI's membership comes through corporate accounts: Wyndham, DVC, etc.  I suspect it is significant.  And, for that segment, the developer still controls exchange company affiliation post-sale.
> 
> 
> I think you are being unnecessarily pessimistic, but even so---you did this to yourself, with your eyes wide open.


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> They are bumping everyone down BUT THEMSELVES.  With the massive conflict of interest from rentals, they are skiming the best weeks for themselves.  That leaves less for the members.  Bootleg and Anon both told us that was happening from their access to RCI computers at work.


To be honest, I shake my head in amazement and frustration.  For ten years, I have saying that skimming (my term) is possible BUT attaching the proper name to such a possibility.  It is called _the Weeks system._

After my very first exchange, my wife declared that it would be in RCI's interest to get everyone, on average, to trade down so that they could then profit by skimming off the top for rentals. What prompted her comment was that we had traded a Hawiian gold crown for a converted motel unit with rusty fixtures throughout -- and that was in the supposed "good ol' days." (In anticipation of any claim that we got stuck with this trade because I was somehow weak minded please read Bill Rogers' statement as to why he started TUG in the first place.  It was just these sorts of grossly uneven trades that prompted him to start this organization -- in the good ol' days.)

So for ten years, ten years, I have been saying that if skimming occurs, it is the Weeks system that makes it possible.  During that entire time, Carolinian has been blaming rentals on Points.

Okay, can skimming occur in Points?  (That, apparently is the point of the quoted response. What happens if they bump everyone down, in  Points, and then skim?) 

Let's start with a straightforward case:  Cindy gets 100,000 points for her tiger trader (the same as what it costs for someone from the outside to trade for her unit), Michael 50,000 for his mid-range trader, and me 20,000 for my dog.  So what happens if Cindy trades for Michael's unit?  In Weeks, she is out of luck for having traded down  (...and this is what would allow for skimming). With Points, on the other hand, she is left with 50,000 more to spend.  Overall, the number of points given out equals the number of points that RCI has to deliver in goods. No skimming! 

Yeah, but what happens if RCI bumps everyone down? (Again the quote.)  Cindy now has 50,000 to spend (the same as the cost of her unit), Michael has 25,000, and I have 10,000.  Cindy can still trade for two of Michael's units (the same as before) while I would need 5 of my units to trade for Cindy's (the same as before).  It is a wash. Nothing has changed by "bumping everyone down."

Bottom line (for ten years now), if you are worried about RCI's ability to skim, ditch the Weeks system.  THAT is what allows for the very possibility.


----------



## "Roger"

Addendum to the above:  There is a way that RCI could skim in the Points system: that would be if they introduced what is being labeled a buy-ask system that Marriott has now adopted.  The number of points needed to secure a unit is higher than the number of points that is given to the owner of the unit.  In a case like this, the number of points worth of goods that Marriott is required to give out in exchange is less than what they receive.  That leaves them with a margin of profitability (one that they can increase at any time by increasing the buy-ask spread).

Notice, however, that this is not what that evil, manipulative, exploitive RCI did.  Rather, this policy was adopted by friendly, fair minded, you can trust Marriott to do well by you (and that is why we are willing to pay higher prices and bigger maintenence fees) Marriott.

Interesting....


----------



## rickandcindy23

"Roger" said:


> I suppose if you were somehow personally cursed so that it was _just your _tiger traders that take a hit this could happen, but it seems unlikely.  (On the other hand, if you are personally cursed, help out the rest of us TUGGERs and tell us where we own so we can dump those places from our porfolio.   )  I feel like that sometimes, I really do.
> 
> If RCI goes after all the tiger traders, then they are bumping up the mediocre resorts.  That is just what they cannot afford to do.  The tiger traders would no longer have any reason to stay in RCI.  These are the people RCI can least afford to lose.  I have way more mediocre traders than tigers, so we will see how they look in the new system.  I have been using them for PFD and depositing elsewhere (like HTSE and TP Maui).
> 
> "Well what happens if they bump everyone down?"  [Cindy did not ask this question, but it was a question that came up a lot when points was first introduced.]  Bumping "everyone" down is the same as not changing anything.  The better resorts will have fewer points to spend, but everything will cost less (since everything else got bumped down). In other words, the tigers have fewer points, but it cost less to trade for any of other resort. So they are no worse off.



Yes, I sometimes wonder about them bumping all of us down.  They rent weeks for about the same as an exchange fee.


----------



## MichaelColey

rickandcindy23 said:


> They rent weeks for about the same as an exchange fee.


They rent *dog weeks* for about the same as an exchange fee (when they have a sale).  Most of the decent weeks are $1000+.   I see 100 DVC Extra Vacations.  The cheapest ones are $819.99 for 3 nights in a Studio at Old Key West.


----------



## bnoble

I think DVC (and many of the other "pricey") weeks are actually developer-owned inventory, using RCI simply as a marketing channel.  The DVC prices are so tightly correlated with Disney's own pricing that it seems clear that RCI does not have pricing discretion.  There are other telltale signs that the Disney EV's are Disney-owned.  In particular, the means for signing up for airport transportation for EV's uses the rental-arm's infrastructure, but exchange guests use DVC's infrastructure.

Indeed, I'm convinced that this is, in essence, exactly why DVC switched to RCI from II.  RCI is just better at this.  II could become competent though.


----------



## Dave599

*More Rentals soon Available*

More movement into the rental realm..............

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (NYSE: WYN - News), a noted hospitality company, announced that through its Exchange and Rentals business unit it is buying ResortQuest, a vacation rental firm in the U.S., for $56 million. The deal is expected to close by the end of the third quarter of 2010.

ResortQuest’s portfolio of 6,000 properties throughout the United States will complement Wyndham's existing network of 85,000 vacation properties in approximately 100 countries, with most of them in Europe. The company has acquired about 30 European rental brands since 2000.

Management believes that this acquisition will facilitate its expansion in the U.S. serviced vacation rental market, which is a $10 billion market and currently lacks a significant player. Moreover, ResortQuest's strong presence in the U.S. and Wyndham’s market leadership in Europe will enable the company to provide excellent service to the customers along with quality product offering.

We view the deal as strategically positive, given that it will expand vacation rental business in the domestic market where Wyndham’s market share is low. Moreover, the deal is also in sync with the company’s strategy to grow organically by acquiring opportunistic fee-for-service based business as it reduces the capital requirement of the company, resulting in a higher free cash flow. Going forward, we expect Wyndham to benefit from its repositioning as a more fee-for-service based business.

Dave


----------



## janej

*How does this compare to RCI points?*

Sorry I did not read all 500+ posts of this thread.  Has any one compared the new programs with RCI points?  I tried to do the comparison with what I read so far.  Here is what I come up with so far.

1.  It is a mandatory program and did not cost anything to join
2. points values of a given week is more dynamic.  RCI points have a conversion grid already for PFD.  It is based on location, season, quality of resort, room size.  But it is fixed.  Redweek program seems to be totally dynamic based on each request.  Is the new program going to be somewhere in between?  Or completely like the Redweek exchange system. 

My other question is how will the new program work with RCI points.  Will we still have the option to PFD?  Will RCI replace the PFD grid with the new trading power point grid?


----------



## rickandcindy23

MichaelColey said:


> They rent *dog weeks* for about the same as an exchange fee (when they have a sale).  Most of the decent weeks are $1000+.   I see 100 DVC Extra Vacations.  The cheapest ones are $819.99 for 3 nights in a Studio at Old Key West.



Last Call is so cheap, it's sickening.  The car rentals cost more than the condo for a week in the Orlando area.  

Off topic: Car rentals are outrageous for our upcoming trip, 10/10-10/24.  Good thing I reserved a car for $428 for two weeks, because they are now around $700.   I am sick of that, too.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*I Resemble That Remark.*




rickandcindy23 said:


> Last Call is so cheap, it's sickening.  The car rentals cost more than the condo for a week in the Orlando area.


Ditto _Instant Exchange_.  

( Is this a great country or what ? )

We rarely do straight-points or straight-weeks exchanges -- now we pretty much always go with _Last Call_ & _Instant Exchange_. 

The thing about _Last Call_ & _Instant Exchange_ is that those categories are for the last-minute leftover off-season dogs & cats that are still up for grabs within 45 days of check-in.  The concept is that RCI would rather get something for them -- i.e., greatly reduced rental rate or points-exchange total -- than let them go begging till check-in has come & gone & the dog-cat inventory simply goes to waste.  

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


----------



## jjmanthei05

Dave599 said:


> More movement into the rental realm..............
> 
> Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (NYSE: WYN - News), a noted hospitality company, announced that through its Exchange and Rentals business unit it is buying ResortQuest, a vacation rental firm in the U.S., for $56 million. The deal is expected to close by the end of the third quarter of 2010.
> 
> ResortQuest’s portfolio of 6,000 properties throughout the United States will complement Wyndham's existing network of 85,000 vacation properties in approximately 100 countries, with most of them in Europe. The company has acquired about 30 European rental brands since 2000.
> 
> Management believes that this acquisition will facilitate its expansion in the U.S. serviced vacation rental market, which is a $10 billion market and currently lacks a significant player. Moreover, ResortQuest's strong presence in the U.S. and Wyndham’s market leadership in Europe will enable the company to provide excellent service to the customers along with quality product offering.
> 
> We view the deal as strategically positive, given that it will expand vacation rental business in the domestic market where Wyndham’s market share is low. Moreover, the deal is also in sync with the company’s strategy to grow organically by acquiring opportunistic fee-for-service based business as it reduces the capital requirement of the company, resulting in a higher free cash flow. Going forward, we expect Wyndham to benefit from its repositioning as a more fee-for-service based business.
> 
> Dave




This has nothing to do with timeshares. This is for people who own condo's outright and rent them to people. It is more like a management company than some sinister way to steal exchanges. It's almost the same thing as Wyndham opening a new hotel and renting out the rooms. I can hate the Wyndham\ RCI practices as much as the next person but keep it to facts of what is actually happening with timeshares. 

Jason


----------



## MichaelColey

rickandcindy23 said:


> Last Call is so cheap, it's sickening. The car rentals cost more than the condo for a week in the Orlando area.


Yeah, but how many of them would you be willing to stay in?  They're the dogs.  I just looked at the 22 Orlando resorts that currently have 2BR Last Call availability (about $315 after taxes, I think), and I'm not sure I would want to stay in any of them for $315 when there are much nicer resorts that you can get into for not much more.  None of what I would consider the "Top 20" Orlando resorts are on Last Call.



rickandcindy23 said:


> Off topic: Car rentals are outrageous for our upcoming trip, 10/10-10/24. Good thing I reserved a car for $428 for two weeks, because they are now around $700.  I am sick of that, too.


I got our rental car for our upcoming 2 week trip for $329.  Usually, I shoot for $200/week.  Many people have good success with Priceline.  I book direct through National since I have Executive Elite status and can just pick any car from the Executive or Emerald Club Aisles (or SUV or Minivan, if they have one on either aisle).  I could probably get better prices through Priceline, but I usually get great cars and I earn free days that I can use for more expensive rentals.


----------



## rickandcindy23

*Off-topic again....*



> I got our rental car for our upcoming 2 week trip for $329. Usually, I shoot for $200/week. Many people have good success with Priceline. I book direct through National since I have Executive Elite status and can just pick any car from the Executive or Emerald Club Aisles (or SUV or Minivan, if they have one on either aisle). I could probably get better prices through Priceline, but I usually get great cars and I earn free days that I can use for more expensive rentals.



How can I be that level?   I want to have that benefit.  Car rentals are killing me lately, totally ruining my trip planning: Hotwire, Alamo through Costco, Mousesavers discount codes, nothing is helping this time.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*I Resemble That Remark.*




MichaelColey said:


> Yeah, but how many of them would you be willing to stay in?


Shux, 6 timeshares on the Orlando _Last Call_ list right now are resorts where we've stayed -- & would stay in again.  Nice places. 

Four other current Orlando _Last Calls_ are also OK -- we'd willingly go there, too. 

Not only that, we sometimes find units nice available via _Instant Exchange_ in Orlando & elsewhere. 

It's getting so that it hurts our feelings if we have to do a regular straight-points or straight-weeks exchange, much less stay in our own paid-for units that cost us a full year's maintenance fees.  We'd rather rent those out for cash & use _Last Call_ & _Instant Exchange_ for our own timeshare vacations. 

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


----------



## timeos2

rickandcindy23 said:


> How can I be that level?   I want to have that benefit.  Car rentals are killing me lately, totally ruining my trip planning: Hotwire, Alamo through Costco, Mousesavers discount codes, nothing is helping this time.



Cindy - It's risky BUT I've had great luck recently with Priceline last 5 day rentals. I make a "standard" car reservation in case but at the 5 day mark, when I get the email offer from Priceline, I do the deep discount last mnute bid and, 7 times so far, have got the car for <$12 day!  Every time it's been less than 1/2 and in a few 1/3 of the rate I had. I take it, cancel the "regular" one and it's worked out great. 

Sign up for the Priceline last minute deals and you may save big.


----------



## MichaelColey

MichaelColey said:


> I book direct through National since I have Executive Elite status and can just pick any car from the Executive or Emerald Club Aisles (or SUV or Minivan, if they have one on either aisle).





rickandcindy23 said:


> How can I be that level? I want to have that benefit. Car rentals are killing me lately


You can become an Emerald Club Member for free (I think - if they try to charge to sign up, search and you can find a free link), which lets you pick a car from the Emerald Aisle (in locations where they have one).  To earn Executive status, you need 12 rentals or 40 days.  This level lets you pick from the Executive Aisle (usually even better cars, where they have one) and you earn free rentals quicker.  To earn Executive Elite status, you need 24 rentals or 85 days.  This level adds the ability to use free rental days for any type of car (SUV, Minivan, Convertible, Luxury, etc.).

Rental cars have been pretty outrageous the last year or so.  Rental car companies are able to adjust their inventory much quicker and easier than airlines are able to adjust their fleets, so they've downsized through the down economy, and their fleets are smaller which pushes up the prices.

With National, finding the right combination of Contract ID and Coupon Code  makes all the difference.  And when you just can't find a good rate (or are driving one way), the free rental days come in really handy.

Priceline is cheaper and simpler, but the perks are worth the difference to me.


----------



## Tommart

*Change in RCI Weeks*

I wish the rental car discussion would have it's own thread.

As for the change in RCI weeks, I'm basically in favor of the change.

It's nice that one can combine weeks or get change back.

Someone with a 2-bedroom lockout, who traded one-bedroom at a time may not quality for a lot of weeks.  With the current system, they have no other options.  In theory, seeing the trade value, owners now have the option of trading both sides to upgrade to a better unit or week--and might get a little "change back" to help the next exchange.

It will also make it easier to understand the value of a resale.  Double the resale (or initial sale) price may be justified for a week 22 unit with 40 trading points in comparison with a week 20 unit with 20 trading points.

Hopefully, RCI is not making it more difficult to quality for an exchange.  This change should be clarifying the system that RCI already uses with some increased flexibility.

It may make if more difficult for developers to sell off-season weeks.  It's already difficult for owners to resell off season weeks.

Conversely, this may support resale prices of prime units and weeks.  A week 26 unit on the beach may have a trade value of 80, and might be good to trade for 2 or 3 off-season weeks.

Has RCI issued any press releases?  Do you know when this will go into effect?


----------



## Carolinian

While that may well describe what ResortQuest is now, just wait until Wyndham gives it a makeover!




jjmanthei05 said:


> This has nothing to do with timeshares. This is for people who own condo's outright and rent them to people. It is more like a management company than some sinister way to steal exchanges. It's almost the same thing as Wyndham opening a new hotel and renting out the rooms. I can hate the Wyndham\ RCI practices as much as the next person but keep it to facts of what is actually happening with timeshares.
> 
> Jason


----------



## Carolinian

Like RCI Points, the values of any published RCI values system is likely to be skewed in favor of the big players UNLESS they are truely transparent and also publish all formulas and supporting data to establish those values, and you can bet they will not do that.  

My summer UK weeks are now going to DAE and SFX and my summer OBX week goes to rental if a family member is not using it.

I could care less about how this impacts developers, although many developers will have undoubtedly made their own backroom deals for inflated values with RCI.  I do care, however, about HOA's and this is going to bushwhack many of them.  It is especially dirty business that RCI is doing this right when m/f bills are going out.  I bet that it will cause m/f collections on off season weeks to go down.  If RCI gave a damn at all for their resort affiliates they would put this off until February or so.




Tommart said:


> I wish the rental car discussion would have it's own thread.
> 
> As for the change in RCI weeks, I'm basically in favor of the change.
> 
> It's nice that one can combine weeks or get change back.
> 
> Someone with a 2-bedroom lockout, who traded one-bedroom at a time may not quality for a lot of weeks.  With the current system, they have no other options.  In theory, seeing the trade value, owners now have the option of trading both sides to upgrade to a better unit or week--and might get a little "change back" to help the next exchange.
> 
> It will also make it easier to understand the value of a resale.  Double the resale (or initial sale) price may be justified for a week 22 unit with 40 trading points in comparison with a week 20 unit with 20 trading points.
> 
> Hopefully, RCI is not making it more difficult to quality for an exchange.  This change should be clarifying the system that RCI already uses with some increased flexibility.
> 
> It may make if more difficult for developers to sell off-season weeks.  It's already difficult for owners to resell off season weeks.
> 
> Conversely, this may support resale prices of prime units and weeks.  A week 26 unit on the beach may have a trade value of 80, and might be good to trade for 2 or 3 off-season weeks.
> 
> Has RCI issued any press releases?  Do you know when this will go into effect?


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> Like RCI Points, the values of any published RCI values system is likely to be skewed in favor of the big players UNLESS they are truely transparent and also publish all formulas and supporting data to establish those values, and you can bet they will not do that.
> 
> My summer UK weeks are now going to DAE and SFX and my summer OBX week goes to rental if a family member is not using it.
> 
> I could care less about how this impacts developers, although many developers will have undoubtedly made their own backroom deals for inflated values with RCI.  I do care, however, about HOA's and this is going to bushwhack many of them.  It is especially dirty business that RCI is doing this right when m/f bills are going out.  I bet that it will cause m/f collections on off season weeks to go down.  If RCI gave a damn at all for their resort affiliates they would put this off until February or so.


If RCI skews it in favor of the big players, will it really make any difference?  I still don't see how publishing the numbers makes this any more likely than a system where nothing is made public.  At least with published numbers, people would know what they're dealing with.

There are two main types of people: those who will look at the numbers and consider whether the more expensive resort is worth the cost, and those who will assume that the more expensive resort is better by virtue of the higher cost.

This new system will be a distinct benefit for the first group.  If I want to exchange into the Outer Banks in NC, I can see several choices.  If I like the more rustic resorts on the beach, do I really care the RCI wants more points for the fancier resort off the beach?  And do you honestly think RCI will maintain high point values for resorts that end up not trading well?  If the off-beach properties are assessed higher point values, and people don't trade into them, they will have to make changes.  If anything, lower points for the beach units will drive up demand for them!  And you also can't convince me that those same resorts have a higher trade power in RCI Weeks, even if the RCI Points values are higher.

For that second set of timeshare owners, publishing the formulas won't make any difference either.  These are the same people who still bought from the developer even after their neighbor told them in detail about resales - they are stuck on the idea that more expensive means better.  Yes, they might be fooled into thinking Resort B is better than Resort A, because it costs more points, but do you really care?  That leaves more Resort A weeks for those that do care.

In the short term, this could cause some owners to default on their maintenance fees.  But perhaps this is the shakeup that is needed.  Most of these resorts do in fact have the ability to adjust the way maintenance fees are assessed, it just requires a supermajority of the membership to approve.  Currently it is not in the best interest of the peak week owners to do so, but if they are going to have to absorb the costs associated with the worse weeks anyway, perhaps they will see things differently.  Perhaps some resort will choose to shut down during the slowest seasons, perhaps some will find other solutions.  Even if it forces some resorts to close, that is not necessarily a bad thing - when the properties are sold, the owners will all share in the proceeds, and can purchase at the other local resorts that do stay open.  Or perhaps those who want to keep the resort open will form a new group to purchase the resort and structure the ownership differently, such that owners of all weeks are treated fairly.

In highly seasonal resort areas, many hotels shut down for the off-season.  Perhaps that is what timeshare should be doing as well. Yes that means maintenance fees will go up some for the owner of the other weeks, but those owners will still see value compared to the cost of those hotels.  Owners of the weeks being eliminated can be given a unit in a "better" season or bought out by the HOA.  If there is significant clammor about not closing the resort during those weeks, then perhaps there really isn't the problem you're seeing?  

If anything, perhaps this change will force change a bit faster - which just might be a good thing.  Far better to find out almost all the week 4 owners want out, and deal with the remaining owner, than to have them slowly bleed out over the next 10 year, and constantly deal with increasing fees.


----------



## Carolinian

When the numbers are not published, there is no _*incentive*_
for developers to politick RCI for inflated numbers.  If nobody sees it, there is no value to them to do so, or so little value that it is not worth their while.  With published numbers, on the other hand, that can directly impact sales in either direction, depending on the numbers.  Suddenly there is a *huge* incentive.


----------



## crazyhorse

Has RCI released a new weeks exchange "value" system yet?

I see the start of this thread was 6 months ago, and I don`t wish to read all 540 posts regarding this.

If RCI has done so, could we see the text of it somewhere on the forum?

If RCI hasn`t, how much longer do we have to wait?


----------



## Carolinian

Haven't we been over this ground before?

In terms of closing a resort for some period, the HOA cannot simply tell a deeded owner the resort is being closed then.  He has a legal right to occupy the unit when he owns.  HOA's are not the gestapo.

I love your ''just takes a supermajority'' thing!  Have you ever tried to get one of those?  It is almost impossible.  And with resorts where a majority of owners own to use, even suggesting doing so over some exchanging issue when it will raise fees is not going to get to first base.  A supermajority is also often a supermajority of ALL owners, not merely a supermajority of a quorum, one of the factors leading to the usual impossibility of getting one.

As to closing resorts for good, do you know who gets screwed by that?  In most cases, it is the prime week owners.  Unless there is a provision otherwise inserted in some states laws or perhaps in some declarations of covenants, then both the Uniform Condominium Act and the acts preceding that (one set modelled on the HUD model condominium act, like North Carolina, and the other set modelled on Puerto Rico's condominium statutes) provide that all weeks are paid out equally.  That means an owner of week 50 or week 3 gets the same amount as the owner of week 27 or week 30.  That is not fair or realistic in terms of value but that is the law.  And again, closing a resort is something that takes a supermajority, something you seem to think is a breeze but in reality is nearly impossible.  Indeed, except at designated intervals, in a resort under state stautes derived from the HUD model act, it takes unanimous consent to close a resort.  I am sure you think that is a breeze, too.

I know you always try to back whatever RCI is doing, but can't you at least look at it from an HOA or an individual timeshare owners perspective just a little bit?

What HOA's need to be doing is not the things you mention, but to 1) migrate all of their members who exchange to other exchange companies, and 2) gear HOA resales to own-to-use buyers.





Mel said:


> In the short term, this could cause some owners to default on their maintenance fees.  But perhaps this is the shakeup that is needed.  Most of these resorts do in fact have the ability to adjust the way maintenance fees are assessed, it just requires a supermajority of the membership to approve.  Currently it is not in the best interest of the peak week owners to do so, but if they are going to have to absorb the costs associated with the worse weeks anyway, perhaps they will see things differently.  Perhaps some resort will choose to shut down during the slowest seasons, perhaps some will find other solutions.  Even if it forces some resorts to close, that is not necessarily a bad thing - when the properties are sold, the owners will all share in the proceedsand can purchase at the other local resorts that do stay open.  Or perhaps those who want to keep the resort open will form a new group to purchase the resort and structure the ownership differently, such that owners of all weeks are treated fairly.
> 
> In highly seasonal resort areas, many hotels shut down for the off-season.  Perhaps that is what timeshare should be doing as well. Yes that means maintenance fees will go up some for the owner of the other weeks, but those owners will still see value compared to the cost of those hotels.  Owners of the weeks being eliminated can be given a unit in a "better" season or bought out by the HOA.  If there is significant clammor about not closing the resort during those weeks, then perhaps there really isn't the problem you're seeing?
> 
> If anything, perhaps this change will force change a bit faster - which just might be a good thing.  Far better to find out almost all the week 4 owners want out, and deal with the remaining owner, than to have them slowly bleed out over the next 10 year, and constantly deal with increasing fees.


----------



## bnoble

> Has RCI released a new weeks exchange "value" system yet?
> 
> I see the start of this thread was 6 months ago, and I don`t wish to read all 540 posts regarding this.
> 
> If RCI has done so, could we see the text of it somewhere on the forum?
> 
> If RCI hasn`t, how much longer do we have to wait?


Not yet.  Word is that it is "sometime this year"---presumably next month, but I've also heard December 1st.  We shall see.  There was a link to an RCI blurb explaining the basics several pages back, but it was very "soft" and didn't have a lot of detail.


----------



## Carolinian

Mel said:


> If RCI skews it in favor of the big players, will it really make any difference?   .
> .



Yes, it will mean people from overpointed places like Vacation Village at Parkway has in RCI Points, getting trades that they should not get, given the real value of their week.  That will take trades away from people with genuinely valuable weeks.  If you don't remember, this is the resort identified by RCI employee Bootleg, a valued participant on these boards in the past, as the resort with far and away the biggest excessive of inventory of any resort in the entire RCI system.  With a supply / demand curve like that their points value should be a whole heck of a lot lower than what RCI gives it.

It is the clear RCI Points valuation frauds like Vacation Village at Parkway that scream for true transparency of the valuation system if their are to be published values.


----------



## crazyhorse

bnoble said:


> Not yet.  Word is that it is "sometime this year"---presumably next month, but I've also heard December 1st.  We shall see.  There was a link to an RCI blurb explaining the basics several pages back, but it was very "soft" and didn't have a lot of detail.



Thanks!!

Saved me a big search.


----------



## MichaelColey

I was told November on the phone recently.


----------



## Simoncc

Carolinian said:


> When the numbers are not published, there is no _*incentive*_
> for developers to politick RCI for inflated numbers.



But the current system allows all sales teams (not just the large developers) to claim that a studio out of season in Florida/Canaries will grab peak units elsewhere because they are all 'red'. How is that better for potential purchasers?

As Mel points out, under the points system any initial sales boost gained by inflated points values will be offset by a likely fall in exchangers coming in thereby culling the number of potential new marks to be had.


----------



## abdibile

How is this "new weeks" system different from a points system?

Sounds to me like no more trading up like it was possible under the old weeks system.


----------



## bnoble

> Sounds to me like no more trading up like it was possible under the old weeks system.


I could be wrong, but I suspect it is already true that these credit values are being used "under the covers", and have been since 5/30/09 (though I think they were also adjusted early summer 2010).  If I'm right (and I might not be) anything you can see with a particular deposit now has a trade value at or under said deposit's value.  In other words, I think 5/30/09 was the end of "trading up."


----------



## Carolinian

Thank you for mentioning the season colors, something RCI has long published.  It is the published things that they manipulate for developers like those color seasons.  Based on supply and demand, as shown by RCI's own tables in the European version of its directory, there is a whole lot in the Canaries and Florida that would be blue if they were honest.

And that is part of the reason for the concern over their publishing of values without any transparency as to how those values are derived.




Simoncc said:


> But the current system allows all sales teams (not just the large developers) to claim that a studio out of season in Florida/Canaries will grab peak units elsewhere because they are all 'red'. How is that better for potential purchasers?
> 
> As Mel points out, under the points system any initial sales boost gained by inflated points values will be offset by a likely fall in exchangers coming in thereby culling the number of potential new marks to be had.


----------



## Carolinian

abdibile said:


> How is this "new weeks" system different from a points system?
> 
> Sounds to me like no more trading up like it was possible under the old weeks system.



Just a different type of trading up, like in RCI Points, where the overpointed weeks get to take weeks they never should be able to take.  I used to post several examples, like how a blue week in overbuilt (way too much timeshare for what is there) New Bern could trade for a summer oceanfront week on the OBX without even using the even more unfair crossover grids.  That was straight through the Points system without touching weeks and within the same state.  Indeed in a points type system the trading up is even more insideous as it is built into the system with designed in overpointing.


----------



## MichaelColey

There's no meat to your argument.  If they manipulate actual trading value, the person they will hurt the most is themselves.  If they overvalue resorts or weeks, RCI will get stuck with a lot of extra inventory for those resorts or weeks.  If they undervalue resorts or weeks, those owners will go elsewhere.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Regular Points & Lite Points & Heavy Points.*




abdibile said:


> How is this "new weeks" system different from a points system?


Some of the TUG-BBS people who look askance upon the new system have referred to it as _Points-Lite_. 

_Points-Heavy_ might be more like it, depending on the denomination RCI goes with for the "change back" that's given when an _el primo_ week is used as trade bait for a so-so week.  

What I want to know is the form in which the "change back" will be issued, & what system will be set up for using the _Heavy Points_ issued as change back.  

Plus, I am specially interested in knowing whether regular RCI Points PFD can be done with odd amounts of RCI Weeks _Heavy Points_ received as "change back."

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


----------



## timeos2

*The change will occur in November - that is certain*



MichaelColey said:


> There's no meat to your argument.  If they manipulate actual trading value, the person they will hurt the most is themselves.  If they overvalue resorts or weeks, RCI will get stuck with a lot of extra inventory for those resorts or weeks.  If they undervalue resorts or weeks, those owners will go elsewhere.



Great point -one, along with the fact that the values are being applied if they are published or not, that means members will be better off with more knowledge (what value does my week have - what value does what I want have?) than without. How the value were assigned might be interesting but not critical to my being able to use that information to make better informed choices about trading. 

It has been repeated over and over again in this thread and other discussions that more information never hurts and this disclosure is LONG overdue and should help all owners once the shock of discovering their week(s) may not be worth what they thought it was wears off. Again they have had the value all along -the change being knowing the value RCI assigns vs guessing what value they own. Unless they like being fooled (and not knowing why  a trade they thought they should get didn't happen) this is an improvement in the way the system operates.

It WILL be rolled out in November 2010 - I have no exact date so far.


----------



## Carolinian

Actually, there is no meat in yours.

If RCI were really an exchange company, it might make some sense, but RCI now is ''Rental Condos International'' or ''Rents Condos Instead'', so their agenda and motivations are a whole lot more complex.

Also, part of their motivation involves pandering to developers to encourage the developers to funnel them lots of new members.  Sold out resorts are not sending them new members so they tend to get the shaft.

You also ignore the fact that they are already doing it in RCI Points.

But then again, I am not surprised as you are one who can always be depended upon to jump to the defense of RCI on whatever.




MichaelColey said:


> There's no meat to your argument.  If they manipulate actual trading value, the person they will hurt the most is themselves.  If they overvalue resorts or weeks, RCI will get stuck with a lot of extra inventory for those resorts or weeks.  If they undervalue resorts or weeks, those owners will go elsewhere.


----------



## Carolinian

timeos2 said:


> It WILL be rolled out in November 2010 - I have no exact date so far.



I am sure the HOAs will be so glad to hear that.  Just when m/f bills are going out to upset members who trade.  What a great encouragement for members to bail out.  The timing on this could not be worse for HOA's if RCI tried, and if some of the speculation a few years ago on The Timeshare Beat was right, perhaps they did!


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> You also ignore the fact that they are already doing it in RCI Points.


Could you give me some examples? If they're really doing that, it should be simple to buy some of the overvalued points resorts and use the points to get into undervalued resorts. I don't see much inefficiency like that on the RCI Points side.


Carolinian said:


> But then again, I am not surprised as you are one who can always be depended upon to jump to the defense of RCI on whatever.


I find tremendous value in exchanging through RCI (particularly the Weeks side).  I'm just sharing that and trying to learn, not necessarily defending RCI.


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


> Could you give me some examples? If they're really doing that, it should be simple to buy some of the overvalued points resorts and use the points to get into undervalued resorts. I don't see much inefficiency like that on the RCI Points side.



When I obtained an RCI Points directory from a disgruntled member, I posted a number of specific examples on these boards.  Unfortunately, I did not bring that directory with me to Europe and I will not be back in the states until the holidays.

As to general examples, Vacation Village at Parkway, the resort with the biggest oversupply in the entire RCI system has points numbers way too high for a resort with such a bad supply / demand curve.  Also on the OBX, BIS-Kitty Hawk, the resort with the lowest demand on the OBX is given more points for week and size than BIS-Duck, which is the second highest demand resort on the OBX.  That is a result of a deal by the developer, which then still controlled the HOA at both even though Duck had been sold out for years, and was motivated by the fact that Kitty Hawk was still in developer sales.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Mox Nix.*




MichaelColey said:


> I'm just sharing that and trying to learn, not necessarily defending RCI.


No excuse.

Anything but a blanket condemnation of RCI gets you automatically lumped in with the _RCI Can Do No Wrong_ crowd. 

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


----------



## jjmanthei05

Carolinian said:


> When I obtained an RCI Points directory from a disgruntled member, I posted a number of specific examples on these boards.  Unfortunately, I did not bring that directory with me to Europe and I will not be back in the states until the holidays.
> 
> As to general examples, Vacation Village at Parkway, the resort with the biggest oversupply in the entire RCI system has points numbers way too high for a resort with such a bad supply / demand curve.  Also on the OBX, BIS-Kitty Hawk, the resort with the lowest demand on the OBX is given more points for week and size than BIS-Duck, which is the second highest demand resort on the OBX.  That is a result of a deal by the developer, which then still controlled the HOA at both even though Duck had been sold out for years, and was motivated by the fact that Kitty Hawk was still in developer sales.




So what is the complaint on this board that people can't get primo weeks because RCI rents them or that the "wrong" people can pull them because you think there week isn't valuable enough? To me anything that is a "ski week" or a European\South African week has no value to me because I hate to ski and  I never plan on going to Europe\SA. So to me those weeks could seem overvalued since they have no value to me. And when you look at the supply\demand curve how do you factor in that almost half of all deposits go unused? 

Wouldn't the new system allow you to see what places are overvalued actually making them more valuable because of the increased trading power? So if I am looking for a resort to do nothing but exchange, then why wouldn't I own at Vacation Village at Parkway since I don't care what the underlying property is if I have no intention of ever staying there? If all I care about it trading power would those type of resorts give me the best bang for my buck? I don't care because I don't ever use RCI since I stay "in network" with my timeshare, just trying to further the discussion.

Jason


----------



## Tommart

*My opinion hasn't changed*

I'd prefer to know what system RCI is using, rather than the current blind approach.  Can't believe people are arguing to keep the old approach.

Tell me what my week is worth and what the week is worth that I'm exchanging for.  

I also like the flexibility of being able to get a week/unit that is better than the one I own, or receive extra points when I trade for one that is worth less than I own.

Also, if I buy another timeshare, I want to know its RCI trading power before I buy.


----------



## Rene McDaniel

Tommart said:


> Also, if I buy another timeshare, I want to know its RCI trading power before I buy.



Good point.  Clearly some people have no idea the relative value of the week they own.  Here's one example from Redweek.com in the Redwishes section for "owner to owner" exchanges, (and someone spent money to place this ad):

_"Looking for: Bahamas Atlantis Paradise Island, for 4 people min. (1 or 2 BDR), date one week Sat. April 16, 2011. To trade with: Orlando Orange Lake Kissimmee - Disney favor place; Gold RCI (# resort RCI 0670) 2 BDR max 8 people. Week flexible for Trade." _

Makes me shake my head.  But maybe their salesman told them with a straight face that they'd be able to trade their Orange Lake Kissimmee week for Easter week at Atlantis Harborside.


----------



## bnoble

> There's no meat to your argument.


You are forgetting the fundamental axiom: "RCI is evil."  Starting from that, the argument is obvious.




> I am not surprised as you are one who can always be depended upon to jump to the defense of RCI on whatever.





> Anything but a blanket condemnation of RCI gets you automatically lumped in with the RCI Can Do No Wrong crowd.


As Alan suggests, welcome to the club.  Logic need not apply.  

Steve has some specific points that are actually pretty sound, but he generalizes from those specific examples to the Entire Universe.  If you don't see the Truth and Beauty in his observations, you must be an RCI shill.  I've given up even arguing with him, to the point of ignoring his posts, because there is no reason to expect it to be an actual conversation with give and take.


----------



## cruisin

timeos2 said:


> Great point -one, along with the fact that the values are being applied if they are published or not, that means members will be better off with more knowledge (what value does my week have - what value does what I want have?) than without. How the value were assigned might be interesting but not critical to my being able to use that information to make better informed choices about trading.
> 
> It has been repeated over and over again in this thread and other discussions that more information never hurts and this disclosure is LONG overdue and should help all owners once the shock of discovering their week(s) may not be worth what they thought it was wears off. Again they have had the value all along -the change being knowing the value RCI assigns vs guessing what value they own. Unless they like being fooled (and not knowing why  a trade they thought they should get didn't happen) this is an improvement in the way the system operates.
> 
> 
> It WILL be rolled out in November 2010 - I have no exact date so far.



I was told Nov 14th,   there will be  major shutdown of the RCI site Nov12-14  for updating the system,  I have been told that the 14th will be  a big  day for points light


----------



## cruisin

The points that have been assigned at one resort I know of, (pretty Low) make depositing prime weeks undesirable. the resort has a 98% exchange rate for every single week deposited into RCI, basically every week gets used. I think there are over 1500 weeks  deposited every year, the guess, and its just a guess, is that it will be hundreds less under the new system.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> Haven't we been over this ground before?
> 
> In terms of closing a resort for some period, the HOA cannot simply tell a deeded owner the resort is being closed then.  He has a legal right to occupy the unit when he owns.  HOA's are not the gestapo.


No, they can't, but they can certainly offer an incentive to do so.  And if things get bad enough, the rest of the owners can in fact vote to modify the timeshare agreement.[/QUOTE]


> I love your ''just takes a supermajority'' thing!  Have you ever tried to get one of those?  It is almost impossible.  And with resorts where a majority of owners own to use, even suggesting doing so over some exchanging issue when it will raise fees is not going to get to first base.  A supermajority is also often a supermajority of ALL owners, not merely a supermajority of a quorum, one of the factors leading to the usual impossibility of getting one


As a matter of fact, I have seen this happen - and had my deed modified by an amendment to the condo docs.  We rebuilt our resort and eliminated several units, and consolidated the deeds.  That was in fact the issue with the unit I bought last December, Escapes! wouldn't recognize the transfer of ownership because the deed referenced the original unit number, which no longer exists, so a corrected deed had to be prepared.  





> As to closing resorts for good, do you know who gets screwed by that?  In most cases, it is the prime week owners.  Unless there is a provision otherwise inserted in some states laws or perhaps in some declarations of covenants, then both the Uniform Condominium Act and the acts preceding that (one set modelled on the HUD model condominium act, like North Carolina, and the other set modelled on Puerto Rico's condominium statutes) provide that all weeks are paid out equally.  That means an owner of week 50 or week 3 gets the same amount as the owner of week 27 or week 30.  That is not fair or realistic in terms of value but that is the law.  And again, closing a resort is something that takes a supermajority, something you seem to think is a breeze but in reality is nearly impossible.  Indeed, except at designated intervals, in a resort under state stautes derived from the HUD model act, it takes unanimous consent to close a resort.  I am sure you think that is a breeze, too..


I didn't say it was a breeze, but is a distinct possibility when the resort gets to the point where large numbers are abandoning their weeks.  Yes, the peak week owners get hurt by a sale of the resort, but they also are hurt by the wholesale abandonment of the lesser weeks.  They are also "hurt" if the condo docs can be amended to allow for different maintenance fees for different weeks.  But those same owners have been benefitting from the maintenance fees paid by the other owners. 

Consider two owners who have owned for 25 years.  One paid $10,000 up front 20 years ago, plus another 10,000 in maintenance fees over those 20 years, and had a holiday week.  The other paid $5000 up front, and the same 10,000 in maintenance fees for a mid-valued week.  Are you really going to argue that the first owner didn't get $5000 worth of value out of having a holiday week?  Another way to look at it is that they both paid $5000 to buy a share of the resort, and the first owner paid an extra $5000 for the right to reserve the better week.  If they were selling after 5 years, I might agree that peak owner gets screwed, but not after 20 years![/QUOTE]


> I know you always try to back whatever RCI is doing, but can't you at least look at it from an HOA or an individual timeshare owners perspective just a little bit?.


No, I don't always back RCI, but my perspective as an owner is not the same as yours.  I have the perspective of an owner from a resort that almost had to liquidate, do you?  Do you perhaps only care about the perspective of peak week owners? 





> What HOA's need to be doing is not the things you mention, but to 1) migrate all of their members who exchange to other exchange companies, and 2) gear HOA resales to own-to-use buyers.


Do you honestly think any other exchange company is ready to take on members at the scale of RCI's membership?  Redweek tried a points hybrid program, and we are now seeing them convert everybody over to a week-for-week program with DAE, which seems to be first-come-first serve.  SFX and some of the others only accept top weeks.  II does many of the same things RCI does.  Exactly which exchange company should everybody move to?  RCI doesn't work for you, that's fine.  But maybe, just maybe, RCI will end up working for many of the rest of us.

HOAs need to address the iniquities in the timeshare model used to sell units 20 years ago.  RCI needs to create a new exchange model that is fair to all its members.  This incentive you keep talking about for the developers is a red herring.  Even if RCI were to publish their formula, they would add a factor in that always benefits those developer - perhaps resort age (or age of that particular phase)  Further, if they publish the formula, you will know what counts most, and will manipulate their programs to get the best numbers - kind of like teaching to a test.How will that benefit existing owners?  The owners of those new weeks will learn soon enough just how "valuable" their weeks are.  If the base value is modified by a supply and demand factor, and the supply of their weeks is sky high, what do you suppose they will get when they go to deposit?  The owners of the nearby resorts with a lower base value, but no supply and high demand will get more for their deposit.  If new owners fall for the sales presentations, with all the information available at their fingertips (they have to be of certain income levels to attend the presentations, so I bet most have internet access, and many have smart phones), do we really need to look out for their best interests?  We've tried that, and they don't listen!

As Roger and others have stated a number of times, what matters is the numbers, not how you got them.  If those new resorts are rated too high, nobody will want to exchange in.  If that happens, RCI is stuck with inventory they can't move.  That won't be good for their bottom line, and won't make the shareholders happy.  In the end That's who RCI cares about, not the developers.  Could you possibly consider that RCI might have learned its lesson with the Points program?  They gave concessions to the developers, when in fact they probably hoped for the majority of owners to convert.  Otherwise, why didn't they take a bigger piece of the conversion pie?  This time, they are obviously converting everybody, and the developers get no extra fees.  I for one am willing to give it a try.


----------



## Tommart

*New Reality*

I'm a firm believer that the MF needs to stay constant.  One week during the summer at the beach incurs as much maintenance costs as one week in February at the same unit.  MF is for maintenance, and not for the value of the unit.

But I agree that the model needs to change, and I believe it is changing.  Five years ago, an off week at Woodstone cost about $7K.  I hear they sell for $4-5K now.  At the same time, Woodstone has not reduced prices of prime weeks.

The RCI weeks change could increase the difference in purchace/resale prices between prime and non-prime weeks if the difference in trading points between prime and non-prime units is large.  In my opinion, a summer week at Virginia Beach is worth more than ten times the value of the same unit in February.  

If the new RCI weeks system reflects a 10x difference between February and July in Virginia Beach, there's going to be many unhappy and happy people.  In addition, developer prices at VA Beach will need to reflect a 10x difference in price between prime and non-prime weeks.

I agree that the RCI weeks change may increase the number of people who walk away from their non-prime weeks.  In fact, I believe it's already happening.  A huge number of non-prime weeks on ebay do not sell even for one dollar.  Many are high quality units.  It is the week that is undesirable.


----------



## Carolinian

Supply and demand are system wide.  One person's opinion is a tiny drop in the bucket.  It is the totality of those drops that define supply and demand. What you or I think the value of a week to be is irrelevent.  What matters is the totality of demand and the totality of supply.  When a resort has the biggest oversupply of weeks in the entire RCI system, supply and demand dictate that it have the lowest value in the RCI system.  When RCI puts out numbers contrary to that, it shows that they are cooking the books on assigning value.

That developers politick RCI for numbers in RCI Points is not mere speculation.  Heck I had a conversation with an exec at BIS on the OBX during the time they were negotiating with RCI for their points numbers, so I know it happens.  And while he did not name the other resorts, he said that they had a group of GC resorts which were negotiating with RCI as a group.




jjmanthei05 said:


> So what is the complaint on this board that people can't get primo weeks because RCI rents them or that the "wrong" people can pull them because you think there week isn't valuable enough? To me anything that is a "ski week" or a European\South African week has no value to me because I hate to ski and  I never plan on going to Europe\SA. So to me those weeks could seem overvalued since they have no value to me. And when you look at the supply\demand curve how do you factor in that almost half of all deposits go unused?
> 
> Wouldn't the new system allow you to see what places are overvalued actually making them more valuable because of the increased trading power? So if I am looking for a resort to do nothing but exchange, then why wouldn't I own at Vacation Village at Parkway since I don't care what the underlying property is if I have no intention of ever staying there? If all I care about it trading power would those type of resorts give me the best bang for my buck? I don't care because I don't ever use RCI since I stay "in network" with my timeshare, just trying to further the discussion.
> 
> Jason


----------



## Carolinian

*HONEST* numbers are what matters, not merely some numbers.  Honesty is not exactly RCI's long suit when you look at things like their rental program (but, oh, I forgot, you support that, too).  Without full transparency, you simply are not going to get honest numbers out of an organization with a recent history of dishonesty.  Your whole argument reminds me of the scene from the Wizard of Oz and the line ''Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, the great and powerful Oz (RCI) has spoken!''. YES, we DO have to pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

And yes, I have been president of the HOA of a resort devastated by a hurricane.  And I have provided legal advice to a large group of concerned owners at another resort devastated by the same hurricane.  Major disasters do make it easier to forge agreements, but those circumstances do not generally exist absent those disasters if one is seeking modifications in declarations of covenents.

The independents between them, I am sure, will be able to take on any number of RCI defectors.  And, again, your position on this issue reflects you own unwavering loyalty to RCI.  You are, indeed, a true beleiver.

RCI is very much a part of the timeshare model used to sell weeks for many years.  If you have ever watched the promo films they produced and provided to developers, you would know that.  Or the promo literature, too. RCI is promoting a vast disruption in the timeshare world by pulling the rug out from under the ownership / exchange model of timesharing which they themselves promoted for years.  Points Lite is just part of that.  The rental program is also a major part of that.  Over at the Timeshare Beat, some industry insiders speculated after RCI launched RCI Points and then bought a couple of major developers that their end game, possibly in collusion with some other major developers, was to destabilize and crash smaller iindependent resorts, so that the big boys could dominate the industry.  The more I see come out of RCI, the more I wonder if there may not be some truth in that speculation.  The fact that RCI is planning on announcing this new program to the members at the worst time anyone could imagine from the perspective of HOA's is just further evidence of RCI's possible motives.  Could they really be that brain dead not to realize the impact of their timing?

So you acknowledge that RCI factors in elements to its numbers to benefit developers.  That is cooking the books.  There are only two factors that matter in an *HONEST* system and those are 1) supply and 2) demand.  Anything else is just a driver of demand.  Age of facilities, award status, beachfront location, etc. is nothing but a driver of demand.  If it is also considered as a seperate additional factor, then RCI is fraudulently putting its thumb on the scales for a certain category of resorts by double counting one factor.  It is already part of the numbers as a driver of demand and should not be double counted a second time.  It is that cooking of the books that screams for full transparency of RCI's numbers.  Partial transparency by only releasing the final number just encourages developers to cut backroom deals with RCI for numbers skewed in their favor.

It is not just new resorts that may be rated too high.  It is the resorts with the clout with RCI, usually related to size, and that may indirectly benefit other resorts that happen to be located in the same area.




Mel said:


> No, they can't, but they can certainly offer an incentive to do so.  And if things get bad enough, the rest of the owners can in fact vote to modify the timeshare agreement.
> As a matter of fact, I have seen this happen - and had my deed modified by an amendment to the condo docs.  We rebuilt our resort and eliminated several units, and consolidated the deeds.  That was in fact the issue with the unit I bought last December, Escapes! wouldn't recognize the transfer of ownership because the deed referenced the original unit number, which no longer exists, so a corrected deed had to be prepared.  I didn't say it was a breeze, but is a distinct possibility when the resort gets to the point where large numbers are abandoning their weeks.  Yes, the peak week owners get hurt by a sale of the resort, but they also are hurt by the wholesale abandonment of the lesser weeks.  They are also "hurt" if the condo docs can be amended to allow for different maintenance fees for different weeks.  But those same owners have been benefitting from the maintenance fees paid by the other owners.
> 
> Consider two owners who have owned for 25 years.  One paid $10,000 up front 20 years ago, plus another 10,000 in maintenance fees over those 20 years, and had a holiday week.  The other paid $5000 up front, and the same 10,000 in maintenance fees for a mid-valued week.  Are you really going to argue that the first owner didn't get $5000 worth of value out of having a holiday week?  Another way to look at it is that they both paid $5000 to buy a share of the resort, and the first owner paid an extra $5000 for the right to reserve the better week.  If they were selling after 5 years, I might agree that peak owner gets screwed, but not after 20 years!
> No, I don't always back RCI, but my perspective as an owner is not the same as yours.  I have the perspective of an owner from a resort that almost had to liquidate, do you?  Do you perhaps only care about the perspective of peak week owners?
> Do you honestly think any other exchange company is ready to take on members at the scale of RCI's membership?  Redweek tried a points hybrid program, and we are now seeing them convert everybody over to a week-for-week program with DAE, which seems to be first-come-first serve.  SFX and some of the others only accept top weeks.  II does many of the same things RCI does.  Exactly which exchange company should everybody move to?  RCI doesn't work for you, that's fine.  But maybe, just maybe, RCI will end up working for many of the rest of us.
> 
> HOAs need to address the iniquities in the timeshare model used to sell units 20 years ago.  RCI needs to create a new exchange model that is fair to all its members.  This incentive you keep talking about for the developers is a red herring.  Even if RCI were to publish their formula, they would add a factor in that always benefits those developer - perhaps resort age (or age of that particular phase)  Further, if they publish the formula, you will know what counts most, and will manipulate their programs to get the best numbers - kind of like teaching to a test.How will that benefit existing owners?  The owners of those new weeks will learn soon enough just how "valuable" their weeks are.  If the base value is modified by a supply and demand factor, and the supply of their weeks is sky high, what do you suppose they will get when they go to deposit?  The owners of the nearby resorts with a lower base value, but no supply and high demand will get more for their deposit.  If new owners fall for the sales presentations, with all the information available at their fingertips (they have to be of certain income levels to attend the presentations, so I bet most have internet access, and many have smart phones), do we really need to look out for their best interests?  We've tried that, and they don't listen!
> 
> As Roger and others have stated a number of times, what matters is the numbers, not how you got them.  If those new resorts are rated too high, nobody will want to exchange in.  If that happens, RCI is stuck with inventory they can't move.  That won't be good for their bottom line, and won't make the shareholders happy.  In the end That's who RCI cares about, not the developers.  Could you possibly consider that RCI might have learned its lesson with the Points program?  They gave concessions to the developers, when in fact they probably hoped for the majority of owners to convert.  Otherwise, why didn't they take a bigger piece of the conversion pie?  This time, they are obviously converting everybody, and the developers get no extra fees.  I for one am willing to give it a try.


----------



## Carolinian

cruisin said:


> The points that have been assigned at one resort I know of, (pretty Low) make depositing prime weeks undesirable. the resort has a 98% exchange rate for every single week deposited into RCI, basically every week gets used. I think there are over 1500 weeks  deposited every year, the guess, and its just a guess, is that it will be hundreds less under the new system.



If I were to guess, I would suspect that this would be an independent resort.

Your report also strongly suggests, based on usage rate, that the numbers are NOT following supply and demand curves.

I found it very revealing that RCI shared lots of information on the new system with some resorts and did not even tell others that it was in the pipeline.  That was true on both sides of the Atlantic.  While some of those who you are getting hosed have found out their numbers, I suspect that many of those whom RCI was keeping in the dark are those who will take it on the chin under the new regime.

The danger to the resort from what you describe is that many of those exchangers who feel they are getting shafted will bail out.  In high season, that will not be a problem for the resort as those weeks should be able to be turned over quickly.  For the low and shoulder season bailouts, a lot of those coming in a short period may pose a financial problem for the resort.  I would suggest you be proactive and recommend that the HOA in its next newsletter list all the independent exchange companies that will accept the resort as a deposit.  You should also suggest that the resort announce to its members that it is seeking dual affiliation with II, or perhaps do what the Seasons resort chain in Europe did and switch completely to II.

There are some RCI kool aid drinkers that will not comprehend the problem you describe for both HOA's and members.


----------



## jjmanthei05

Carolinian said:


> *HONEST* numbers are what matters, not merely some numbers.  Honesty is not exactly RCI's long suit when you look at things like their rental program (but, oh, I forgot, you support that, too).  Without full transparency, you simply are not going to get honest numbers out of an organization with a recent history of dishonesty.  Your whole argument reminds me of the scene from the Wizard of Oz and the line ''Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, the great and powerful Oz (RCI) has spoken!''. YES, we DO have to pay attention to the man behind the curtain.



What is more important with an exchange company. Fair evaluations or a large amount of choices to exchange into? I would think the latter. What is your real argument that someone who owns a "lesser" resort got into a nicer resort than they should have? Isn't that also a drop in the overall exchange community? So is it that the "have's" can only have the "have's" exchanges and the "have slightly lesser" can't? What about all of the have's that take "lesser" weeks at over built areas because that is where they want to vacation this year to take their kids to Disney or whatever other thing they want to do. Should those weeks sit unused because a have owner exchanged into something less? If I can exchange into places that I want to go with the week I give them then the system works for me. If I can't then I look somewhere else. If they over point someone else's property but I can still get what I want good negotiating for them. 

Jason


----------



## Carolinian

The real problem is that owners at resorts like the one described above by Cruisin are systematically screwed while ownes at resorts like Vacation Village at Parkway are systematically given a lot more than the laws of supply and demand say they deserve.  I suspec that Cruisin's resort will not be the only one in that category by a long shot!




jjmanthei05 said:


> What is more important with an exchange company. Fair evaluations or a large amount of choices to exchange into? I would think the latter. What is your real argument that someone who owns a "lesser" resort got into a nicer resort than they should have? Isn't that also a drop in the overall exchange community? So is it that the "have's" can only have the "have's" exchanges and the "have slightly lesser" can't? What about all of the have's that take "lesser" weeks at over built areas because that is where they want to vacation this year to take their kids to Disney or whatever other thing they want to do. Should those weeks sit unused because a have owner exchanged into something less? If I can exchange into places that I want to go with the week I give them then the system works for me. If I can't then I look somewhere else. If they over point someone else's property but I can still get what I want good negotiating for them.
> 
> Jason


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Tilting At Windmills.*




Carolinian said:


> The real problem is that owners at resorts like the one described above by Cruisin are systematically screwed while ownes at resorts like Vacation Village at Parkway are systematically given a lot more than the laws of supply and demand say they deserve.


If that is true -- maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't know -- then which is more practical, railing against the system on the 1 hand, or on the other hand springing for an underpriced & overvalued eBay resale triennial points-unit at Vacation Village At Parkway ? 

Is this a great country or what ? 

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


----------



## "Roger"

Apparently, for some, having someone who can ill afford it pony up $20,000 for a pink week upon promises of super trading value is not seen as a problem.  We need to support the developers by letting them oversell their units. Let the fresh meat learn the hard way! (Or maybe we can just sweep this problem under the rug and ignore that it is what has given timesharing a terrible reputation.)


We are being led to believe that RCI can completely ignore supply and demand and just use funny numbers.  Not so.

Using exaggerated numbers (but illustrating how supply and demand actually works) suppose RCI gave 20 units of trading power to Disney, 50 to lots of really great weeks, and 80 to some mediocre developer units up for sale.  RCI has fixed cost that they need recover no matter what.  (Pretty high costs.)  What happens with these funny numbers?  No one from Disney deposits because they get no value for doing so.  (No trade fees for RCI to cover their fixed costs, nor toward making a profit.)  Those with the overrated developer weeks are more than happy to trade, but no one is willing to trade up (in points) for their weeks.  So RCI is stuck with useless inventory (and receives no exchange fees to cover fixed costs nor make a profit).  As the inventory in the middle is sucked up by the few people with the overpriced resorts, those with units in the middle see less and less reason to deposit.  (More bad news for RCI.)

That is how supply and demand actually works.  Saying that everything has the same value - one week gets you one week no matter whether you trad up or down - is a distortion of the principle.

(By the by, as described above, what RCI would actually be doing is subsudizing the developers at the cost of their own  profits.  Not what you would expect from a greedy company fixated on the bottomline.)


Yes, there are going to be people upset when they see their actual trading power.  Many of them are upset now (often looking for a scapegoat, not wanting to face up to the fact that they made a bad purchase).  They should have been told their trading power years ago, preferably before they laid cash down on the line. (Oh, I forgot, we need to support the developers by keeping the trading power hidden.)


----------



## miamidan

Carolinian said:


> Supply and demand are system wide.  One person's opinion is a tiny drop in the bucket.  It is the totality of those drops that define supply and demand. What you or I think the value of a week to be is irrelevent.  What matters is the totality of demand and the totality of supply.  When a resort has the biggest oversupply of weeks in the entire RCI system, supply and demand dictate that it have the lowest value in the RCI system.  When RCI puts out numbers contrary to that, it shows that they are cooking the books on assigning value.
> 
> That developers politick RCI for numbers in RCI Points is not mere speculation.  Heck I had a conversation with an exec at BIS on the OBX during the time they were negotiating with RCI for their points numbers, so I know it happens.  And while he did not name the other resorts, he said that they had a group of GC resorts which were negotiating with RCI as a group.



One person's opinion is a tiny drop in the bucket in case you are a person who strongly is opposed to any disclosure.


----------



## Carolinian

miamidan said:


> One person's opinion is a tiny drop in the bucket in case you are a person who strongly is opposed to any disclosure.



No person's opinion should be the basis of trading power.  It should all be based on data which should be disclosed.  FACTS are what matter, not opinions, and RCI does not seem to want to give us those facts.

I am not opposed to disclosure.  I am just opposed to phoney partial disclosure.  If we are going to have disclosure, lets have FULL disclosure, FULL transparency.


----------



## Carolinian

Again, if RCI were still an exchange company, then you might have a point.  But now, even they call themselves a RENTAL and exchange company, and put the word rental first.  In the reial world of the way RCI operates, these days, they are doing a lot of things besides balancing one exchange against another exchange.  Their agenda and motivations are quite different.  Generatating rentals is a big part of their game.  Do you believe it is a  coincidence that they are buying a major condo rental outlet right at the same time they are going to this new exchange regime?

Somehow, I do not find it strange that those who vocally supported RCI's rentals also support this new exchange regime. 

No one is saying everything has the same value.  However, when one looks at current trade power from what one can trade for currently, it is readily apparent that many ''red'' weeks in overbuilt areas have the same trading power as off season weeks most places, and that makes very good sense from a supply / demand perspective.

Why are you afraid of full disclosure by RCI?  Do you own in one of those overbuilt areas?  Some of the most vocal opponents of full disclosure on these boards do, in fact, own in those areas, so I can see why they oppose full disclosure.



"Roger" said:


> Apparently, for some, having someone who can ill afford it pony up $20,000 for a pink week upon promises of super trading value is not seen as a problem.  We need to support the developers by letting them oversell their units. Let the fresh meat learn the hard way! (Or maybe we can just sweep this problem under the rug and ignore that it is what has given timesharing a terrible reputation.)
> 
> We are being led to believe that RCI can completely ignore supply and demand and just use funny numbers.  Not so.
> 
> Using exaggerated numbers (but illustrating how supply and demand actually works) suppose RCI gave 20 units of trading power to Disney, 50 to lots of really great weeks, and 80 to some mediocre developer units up for sale.  RCI has fixed cost that they need recover no matter what.  (Pretty high costs.)  What happens with these funny numbers?  No one from Disney deposits because they get no value for doing so.  (No trade fees for RCI to cover their fixed costs, nor toward making a profit.)  Those with the overrated developer weeks are more than happy to trade, but no one is willing to trade up (in points) for their weeks.  So RCI is stuck with useless inventory (and receives no exchange fees to cover fixed costs nor make a profit).  As the inventory in the middle is sucked up by the few people with the overpriced resorts, those with units in the middle see less and less reason to deposit.  (More bad news for RCI.)
> 
> That is how supply and demand actually works.  Saying that everything has the same value - one week gets you one week no matter whether you trad up or down - is a distortion of the principle.
> 
> (By the by, as described above, what RCI would actually be doing is subsudizing the developers at the cost of their own  profits.  Not what you would expect from a greedy company fixated on the bottomline.)
> 
> 
> Yes, there are going to be people upset when they see their actual trading power.  Many of them are upset now (often looking for a scapegoat, not wanting to face up to the fact that they made a bad purchase).  They should have been told their trading power years ago, preferably before they laid cash down on the line. (Oh, I forgot, we need to support the developers by keeping the trading power hidden.)


----------



## Carolinian

AwayWeGo said:


> If that is true -- maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't know -- then which is more practical, railing against the system on the 1 hand, or on the other hand springing for an underpriced & overvalued eBay resale triennial points-unit at Vacation Village At Parkway ?
> 
> Is this a great country or what ?
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



. . . and what does that do to the HOA and its members at Cruisin's resort?

The better solution is not to change resorts, but to change exchange companies and spread the word to others to do so.


----------



## cruisin

Carolinian said:


> If I were to guess, I would suspect that this would be an independent resort.
> 
> Your report also strongly suggests, based on usage rate, that the numbers are NOT following supply and demand curves.
> 
> I found it very revealing that RCI shared lots of information on the new system with some resorts and did not even tell others that it was in the pipeline.  That was true on both sides of the Atlantic.  While some of those who you are getting hosed have found out their numbers, I suspect that many of those whom RCI was keeping in the dark are those who will take it on the chin under the new regime.
> 
> The danger to the resort from what you describe is that many of those exchangers who feel they are getting shafted will bail out.  In high season, that will not be a problem for the resort as those weeks should be able to be turned over quickly.  For the low and shoulder season bailouts, a lot of those coming in a short period may pose a financial problem for the resort.  I would suggest you be proactive and recommend that the HOA in its next newsletter list all the independent exchange companies that will accept the resort as a deposit.  You should also suggest that the resort announce to its members that it is seeking dual affiliation with II, or perhaps do what the Seasons resort chain in Europe did and switch completely to II.
> 
> There are some RCI kool aid drinkers that will not comprehend the problem you describe for both HOA's and members.




Yes, fairly large independent with all exchange weeks used 52 weeks out of the year, and no last call stuff, even the lowest weeks are always booked., dual affiliated, there has already been a shift in deposit habits and it has been noticed by ALL parties involved.


----------



## Carolinian

cruisin said:


> Yes, fairly large independent with all exchange weeks used 52 weeks out of the year, and no last call stuff, even the lowest weeks are always booked., dual affiliated, there has already been a shift in deposit habits and it has been noticed by ALL parties involved.



It is great that they are dual affiliated.  They should weather the coming storm okay.  Tuggers resorts that are not dual affiliated need to press the HOA to do so.  They also need to encourage resorts to get the word out on the independents exchange companies.

I expect that we will see lots of those deposit shifts where members have other options and are aware of it.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> *HONEST* numbers are what matters, not merely some numbers.  Honesty is not exactly RCI's long suit when you look at things like their rental program (but, oh, I forgot, you support that, too).  Without full transparency, you simply are not going to get honest numbers out of an organization with a recent history of dishonesty.  Your whole argument reminds me of the scene from the Wizard of Oz and the line ''Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, the great and powerful Oz (RCI) has spoken!''. YES, we DO have to pay attention to the man behind the curtain.


Is it not honest to tell people what their week is worth and to offer them the chance to accept that offer or reject it?  That's what this is all about.  It really doesn't matter how they come to the numbers - if people like the numbers they're shown, they will use RCI.  If they don't, they won't.  In fact, publishing the formula will only lead to even more manipulation.  Is that the honesty you want?... it would be nice to have grills outside each block of units, but RCI doesn't give any extra trade power for that, so the HOA has decided to spend the money on something else that does increase trade power...


> And yes, I have been president of the HOA of a resort devastated by a hurricane.  And I have provided legal advice to a large group of concerned owners at another resort devastated by the same hurricane.  Major disasters do make it easier to forge agreements, but those circumstances do not generally exist absent those disasters if one is seeking modifications in declarations of covenents.


I suspect when maintenance fees double or triple because of defaults, people will consider it a disaster.  In this economy, people are already defaulting, because of low trading power.  At least with published numbers they can confirm what their trading power is, and if they still agree with the concept of timeshare, they will know what trades are or are not possible.  Maybe if they come to terms with the fact that the trades they have been seeking for the past 5 years are not reasonable, but that there are in fact interesting trades available to them, they might just see some value in keeping their timeshare.


> The independents between them, I am sure, will be able to take on any number of RCI defectors.  And, again, your position on this issue reflects you own unwavering loyalty to RCI.  You are, indeed, a true beleiver.


Steve, you label anyone who doesn't agree 100% with you a true believer.  I'm in good company





> RCI is very much a part of the timeshare model used to sell weeks for many years.  If you have ever watched the promo films they produced and provided to developers, you would know that.  Or the promo literature, too. RCI is promoting a vast disruption in the timeshare world by pulling the rug out from under the ownership / exchange model of timesharing which they themselves promoted for years.  Points Lite is just part of that.  The rental program is also a major part of that.  Over at the Timeshare Beat, some industry insiders speculated after RCI launched RCI Points and then bought a couple of major developers that their end game, possibly in collusion with some other major developers, was to destabilize and crash smaller iindependent resorts, so that the big boys could dominate the industry.  The more I see come out of RCI, the more I wonder if there may not be some truth in that speculation.  The fact that RCI is planning on announcing this new program to the members at the worst time anyone could imagine from the perspective of HOA's is just further evidence of RCI's possible motives.  Could they really be that brain dead not to realize the impact of their timing?


Exactly when is a good time to announce a big change?  They want it in place in time for the deposits from 2011.  Seems to me since a large percentage of RCI members pay their fees in December and deposit in January.  If most of them still see pretty much the same availability in late November that they see now, I don't think those numbers are going to mean much of anything.  For many, the first time they will see the numbers will be after they pay their maintenance fees.  How is that timing going to hurt the resorts?


> So you acknowledge that RCI factors in elements to its numbers to benefit developers.  That is cooking the books.  There are only two factors that matter in an *HONEST* system and those are 1) supply and 2) demand.  Anything else is just a driver of demand.  Age of facilities, award status, beachfront location, etc. is nothing but a driver of demand.  If it is also considered as a seperate additional factor, then RCI is fraudulently putting its thumb on the scales for a certain category of resorts by double counting one factor.  It is already part of the numbers as a driver of demand and should not be double counted a second time.  It is that cooking of the books that screams for full transparency of RCI's numbers.  Partial transparency by only releasing the final number just encourages developers to cut backroom deals with RCI for numbers skewed in their favor.


RCI is a business, and works in partneship with the developers.  I do not agree that they cook the books, or that they add a factor that is targeted to benefit only the developers.  Yes, all those factors drive supply and demand, but if you can't factor in items which might make one resort more favorable than another, then why is it OK to to factor in unit size, or number of bathrooms?  For that matter, why factor in anything?  Maybe because those base numbers are a starting point based on historical supply and demand?  



> It is not just new resorts that may be rated too high.  It is the resorts with the clout with RCI, usually related to size, and that may indirectly benefit other resorts that happen to be located in the same area.


Not all large resorts have that clout - otherwise why did Orange Lake break into 4 different resort numbers?  Why don't units in the River Island section get more points than VV at Parkway?  Earlier you stated that one person's idea of supply and demand isn't important, yet you often make blanket statements that Orlando is overrated.  Maybe VV at Parkway is overrated, but Orlando as a whole isn't, not according to the occupancy rate of many of the Orlando resorts.  As has been pointed out numerous times, if RCI overvalues weeks, those weeks will sit stagnant, because nobody will want them.  So again I will ask, in what way is that in RCI's best interest?  



Carolinian said:


> No person's opinion should be the basis of trading power.  It should all be based on data which should be disclosed.  FACTS are what matter, not opinions, and RCI does not seem to want to give us those facts.
> 
> I am not opposed to disclosure.  I am just opposed to phoney partial disclosure.  If we are going to have disclosure, lets have FULL disclosure, FULL transparency.


And if RCI isn't willing to disclose trade secrets, then there should be NO disclosure?  Shall we also ask KFC to publish their recipies, because we want to know exactly what is in their food?  If you want a fully transparent trading system, based on trade power, rather than simple first in/first out, go ahead an start one up, or convince someone to move to that model - wait, isn't that kind of what RedWeek tried to do?  Except that they didn't publish either, did they?



Carolinian said:


> Again, if RCI were still an exchange company, then you might have a point.  But now, even they call themselves a RENTAL and exchange company, and put the word rental first.  In the reial world of the way RCI operates, these days, they are doing a lot of things besides balancing one exchange against another exchange.  Their agenda and motivations are quite different.  Generatating rentals is a big part of their game.  Do you believe it is a  coincidence that they are buying a major condo rental outlet right at the same time they are going to this new exchange regime?
> 
> Somehow, I do not find it strange that those who vocally supported RCI's rentals also support this new exchange regime.
> 
> No one is saying everything has the same value.  However, when one looks at current trade power from what one can trade for currently, it is readily apparent that many ''red'' weeks in overbuilt areas have the same trading power as off season weeks most places, and that makes very good sense from a supply / demand perspective.


 And if, ignoring the "base values" that resorts might use in their promotional materials, those same two sets of resorts end up costing the same number of points for an exchanger, or result in the same number of credits on deposit, will you still call the new system unfair?


> Why are you afraid of full disclosure by RCI?  Do you own in one of those overbuilt areas?  Some of the most vocal opponents of full disclosure on these boards do, in fact, own in those areas, so I can see why they oppose full disclosure.


Another red herring.  Yes, I own one week in what you call an "overbuilt" area, but by my standards, most resorts areas are overbuilt - they don't have enough capacity to meet demand in the best seasons, and have more capacity than demand in the slow seasons.  I also happen to own two weeks on the beach, that would hardly be worth trading in RCI Points, yet both do very well in RCI Weeks.  Since I don't consider my Orlando week to be overvalued, compared to what I have been able to trade for in the past, I consider my other weeks to be vastly undervalued.

It's not that any of us fear or oppose full disclosure, but we understand that it won't happen.  We are pushing for what some might call a compromise, others might call consensus.  You seem so upset with RCI that you want to drive them out of business.  Sorry, but RCI's model does in fact work for some of us.  Some of us still want a week-for-week exchange system, but also like the idea of quantifying the trades up and down.  Under this new system, if it works well, those trades up will balance with trades down, rather than the same 20% always getting a trade up, and a different 20% always having to settle for a trade down.


Carolinian said:


> The better solution is not to change resorts, but to change exchange companies and spread the word to others to do so.


Or maybe rather than change exchange companies, encourage the exchange company to change?


----------



## Carolinian

So, publishing the formula for setting value and the data on which it is based will lead to MORE manipulation????????  Wrong.  With that info public, it will make in darn near impossible to manipulate numbers.  It will be transparent and anyone concerned can see if things are legit.

 Increasing demand is what should increase trading power, and anything that does so will be reflected in the demand numbers.

People are getting out of timesharing because of the changes in RCI, and the economy has added to that.  Back before the economy tanked, I was talking with someone who had been in the timeshare resale business for a long time and she told me that years ago no one mentioned complaints with RCI as their reason for selling, but in the last few years it had become a common comment.   Diverting exchange deposits to rentals, which you approve of, is what soured a lot of people on RCI.  This new exchange regime will do more of that.  The situation at Cruisin's resort will be more common that you want to believe, but at least their owners have an out in being dual affiliated with II.

Yeah, I have been crossing swords with the same set of people, largely, since GPN (now RCI Points) was first rolled out.  I remember some of those early discussions, like when I pointed out that the language RCI's rep used in the TUG chat moderated by Fern on GPN (now RCI Points) back when they first rolled it out meant that RCI intended to rent out timeshare weeks to the general public.  The true beleivers jumped me then and said I was wrong.  Well, time has shown who was right, and it wasn't the true beleivers.

Unit size and number of bathrooms are not things factored into trading power.  They are things used to group different unit types when are then  evaluated for trading power.

I do not want to drive RCI out of business.  On the contrary, I want to see them adopt policies  that will give them a solid basis for a fair business that , we can depend on.  That would, in fact, grow their business.



Mel said:


> Is it not honest to tell people what their week is worth and to offer them the chance to accept that offer or reject it?  That's what this is all about.  It really doesn't matter how they come to the numbers - if people like the numbers they're shown, they will use RCI.  If they don't, they won't.  In fact, publishing the formula will only lead to even more manipulation.  Is that the honesty you want?... it would be nice to have grills outside each block of units, but RCI doesn't give any extra trade power for that, so the HOA has decided to spend the money on something else that does increase trade power...
> I suspect when maintenance fees double or triple because of defaults, people will consider it a disaster.  In this economy, people are already defaulting, because of low trading power.  At least with published numbers they can confirm what their trading power is, and if they still agree with the concept of timeshare, they will know what trades are or are not possible.  Maybe if they come to terms with the fact that the trades they have been seeking for the past 5 years are not reasonable, but that there are in fact interesting trades available to them, they might just see some value in keeping their timeshare.
> Steve, you label anyone who doesn't agree 100% with you a true believer.  I'm in good companyExactly when is a good time to announce a big change?  They want it in place in time for the deposits from 2011.  Seems to me since a large percentage of RCI members pay their fees in December and deposit in January.  If most of them still see pretty much the same availability in late November that they see now, I don't think those numbers are going to mean much of anything.  For many, the first time they will see the numbers will be after they pay their maintenance fees.  How is that timing going to hurt the resorts?
> 
> RCI is a business, and works in partneship with the developers.  I do not agree that they cook the books, or that they add a factor that is targeted to benefit only the developers.  Yes, all those factors drive supply and demand, but if you can't factor in items which might make one resort more favorable than another, then why is it OK to to factor in unit size, or number of bathrooms?  For that matter, why factor in anything?  Maybe because those base numbers are a starting point based on historical supply and demand?
> 
> Not all large resorts have that clout - otherwise why did Orange Lake break into 4 different resort numbers?  Why don't units in the River Island section get more points than VV at Parkway?  Earlier you stated that one person's idea of supply and demand isn't important, yet you often make blanket statements that Orlando is overrated.  Maybe VV at Parkway is overrated, but Orlando as a whole isn't, not according to the occupancy rate of many of the Orlando resorts.  As has been pointed out numerous times, if RCI overvalues weeks, those weeks will sit stagnant, because nobody will want them.  So again I will ask, in what way is that in RCI's best interest?
> 
> And if RCI isn't willing to disclose trade secrets, then there should be NO disclosure?  Shall we also ask KFC to publish their recipies, because we want to know exactly what is in their food?  If you want a fully transparent trading system, based on trade power, rather than simple first in/first out, go ahead an start one up, or convince someone to move to that model - wait, isn't that kind of what RedWeek tried to do?  Except that they didn't publish either, did they?
> 
> And if, ignoring the "base values" that resorts might use in their promotional materials, those same two sets of resorts end up costing the same number of points for an exchanger, or result in the same number of credits on deposit, will you still call the new system unfair?
> Another red herring.  Yes, I own one week in what you call an "overbuilt" area, but by my standards, most resorts areas are overbuilt - they don't have enough capacity to meet demand in the best seasons, and have more capacity than demand in the slow seasons.  I also happen to own two weeks on the beach, that would hardly be worth trading in RCI Points, yet both do very well in RCI Weeks.  Since I don't consider my Orlando week to be overvalued, compared to what I have been able to trade for in the past, I consider my other weeks to be vastly undervalued.
> 
> It's not that any of us fear or oppose full disclosure, but we understand that it won't happen.  We are pushing for what some might call a compromise, others might call consensus.  You seem so upset with RCI that you want to drive them out of business.  Sorry, but RCI's model does in fact work for some of us.  Some of us still want a week-for-week exchange system, but also like the idea of quantifying the trades up and down.  Under this new system, if it works well, those trades up will balance with trades down, rather than the same 20% always getting a trade up, and a different 20% always having to settle for a trade down.
> Or maybe rather than change exchange companies, encourage the exchange company to change?


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> ....Why are you afraid of full disclosure by RCI?  ....


I am not sure why I was quoted in post 577 (where this quote comes from) since none of it responded to the points in the quote.

In any case I will respond to this question (ignoring the slurs that follow it).

I am not "afraid" of full disclosure. Rather, I think it is largely irrelevant (and have said so many times).  

(More detailed response)


Personally, I think this "argument" (?) is a red herring.  No matter what RCI reveals, Carolinian will just move the goal post and say that is not enough.

Carolinian has on many occasions said that "partial disclosure" is worse than no disclosure. I apologize, but I will cut and paste my response to this.  "_Is he really suggesting that the young couple being offered a $20,000 timeshare is better off not knowing the trading power of the unit - that if they are not told how the trading power was set, any information about its worth is worse than no information at all._"

I really don't know where else I am told how prices are set.  The airlines don't tell me why this route costs more than that - how they arrived at the number that they did.  Walmart doesn't tell me.  Nor does the local grocery store.  That is because they know what really counts in my mind is what the price is, not how they arrived at it.

Explaining opoint #3 further: Let us suppose that RCI does somehow satisfy Carolinian and meets his criteria of full disclosure.  Further suppose that they reveal that they are sacrificing their own profits in order to support developer X and offer his units more points just to support him.  (This is what Carolinian claims is currently happening.) Well now what do I do with this added essential information?  Well, if they are charging 80 points for a unit that is only worth 40, I don't trade.  But that is exactly what I would have done if I hadn't been told how the price was set.  On the other hand, if the current price is 50 (with the subsudy included) and I still think 50 is a good deal, I trade.
I do think that there is something that would be better than just having RCI reveal trading power numbers and use a points system.  That would be if all the exchange companies did (including the independents).  That way, if one exchange company overprices something, I could just chose another one to get the same unit (as opposed to having to look for something different to trade for within RCI.)  

Unfortunately, instead of arguing for true reform in timesharing, Carolinian has argued for a secret system that has and continues to allow developers to sell overpriced units in pink seasons by letting them exaggerate trading power.  Sad, very sad.


----------



## miamidan

Roger this thread is not about Walmart it is about Full Disclosure!!!


----------



## Carolinian

The red herring, Roger, is your attempts to compare RCI with a retail business which it is not.  RCI is a quasi-fiduciary middleman which facilitates exchanges.  Its customers provide its product, which it then provides to other customers.  Any comparison to a straight retail business, where the business buys a product from a producer for cash or makes it themselves and then sells it to customers is a completely different situation and totally irrelevant. 

If you can show me an airline where the passenger arrives with something the airline uses, like fuel, the airline values it, and then trades him an airline ticket for it, then you will have an airline that is a valid comparison for a timeshare exchange company.

Timesharers have to be able to trust the exchange company's valuations on both ends, which makes it very different from most businesses.

As to RCI not being able to provide the formula and data, the fact is that they already do so on award status.  They print brochures that give the exact formula of what is needed for GC, SC, and hospitality status.  In fact I provided one to TUG some years ago and it was put up on the TUG advise section.  They also provide all of their resorts with the data that goes into the formula monthly.  Since they provide that formula, why in the heck do you try to defend them for not providing the formula on trading power?  The data will be extensive, but they already have to maintain it for their own purposes anyway, so why not share it online?  By providing the trading power numbers, their ''trade secret'' defense is already in the gutter.

If your argument about developers were true, then RCI is shooting themselves in the foot big time, as their new exchange regime would set off a stampede of developers to II. No, RCI will protect its developers in sales, and who will get screwed in the process will be the sold out independent resorts, which RCI is no longer getting a boatload of new members from.  Roger, I could turn your arguments around and say that you care nothing for the independent sold out resorts.   Cruisin cited a specific example and there will be a lot more of those when this hits the fan.




"Roger" said:


> I am not sure why I was quoted in post 577 (where this quote comes from) since none of it responded to the points in the quote.
> 
> In any case I will respond to this question (ignoring the slurs that follow it).
> 
> I am not "afraid" of full disclosure. Rather, I think it is largely irrelevant (and have said so many times).
> 
> (More detailed response)
> 
> 
> Personally, I think this "argument" (?) is a red herring.  No matter what RCI reveals, Carolinian will just move the goal post and say that is not enough.
> 
> Carolinian has on many occasions said that "partial disclosure" is worse than no disclosure. I apologize, but I will cut and paste my response to this.  "_Is he really suggesting that the young couple being offered a $20,000 timeshare is better off not knowing the trading power of the unit - that if they are not told how the trading power was set, any information about its worth is worse than no information at all._"
> 
> I really don't know where else I am told how prices are set.  The airlines don't tell me why this route costs more than that - how they arrived at the number that they did.  Walmart doesn't tell me.  Nor does the local grocery store.  That is because they know what really counts in my mind is what the price is, not how they arrived at it.
> 
> Explaining opoint #3 further: Let us suppose that RCI does somehow satisfy Carolinian and meets his criteria of full disclosure.  Further suppose that they reveal that they are sacrificing their own profits in order to support developer X and offer his units more points just to support him.  (This is what Carolinian claims is currently happening.) Well now what do I do with this added essential information?  Well, if they are charging 80 points for a unit that is only worth 40, I don't trade.  But that is exactly what I would have done if I hadn't been told how the price was set.  On the other hand, if the current price is 50 (with the subsudy included) and I still think 50 is a good deal, I trade.
> I do think that there is something that would be better than just having RCI reveal trading power numbers and use a points system.  That would be if all the exchange companies did (including the independents).  That way, if one exchange company overprices something, I could just chose another one to get the same unit (as opposed to having to look for something different to trade for within RCI.)
> 
> Unfortunately, instead of arguing for true reform in timesharing, Carolinian has argued for a secret system that has and continues to allow developers to sell overpriced units in pink seasons by letting them exaggerate trading power.  Sad, very sad.


----------



## Carolinian

Of course, much of the ''trading up'' in the old system was illusory, either last minute trades when what once was a better trade has become distressed merchandise or overbuilt areas or time that should never have been red at all like hurricane season in the Caribbean.

There is likely to be built in trading up in Points Lite.  Not only will there be the deliberately overpointed resorts as discussed earlier, but from what has been revealed to some resorts, RCI will either from the beginning or at some point as an ''enhancement'' start selling extra points, and this is how most people will be trading up.  I suspect that the cost of the extra points will be such that it would be prohibitive for someone with, say, a January studio on Cape Cod, to buy the points necessary for a 2BR in London in July, so this will more be the Spring week buying the extra points from RCI to snag a summer week.

This will be a benefit to the owners of shoulder time, pink or white, but will be a real disadvantage for the high season owners, as there will not be enough high season weeks for them to all get equal to what they put in, and many of them may not want the ''points back in change'' for taking a lesser week.  This should help drive a lot of those high season owners straight into the arms of SFX, which will probably be smiling ear to ear over the new system.

Of course for RCI, it is like the airlines selling extra ff miles, just another profit center.  Given their rental operations, we certainly should not have expected them to overlook the potential here to put cash in their own pockets.

What will RCI put back?  They always evaded giving a real answer to what they put back for weeks they raided from Weeks for their Points members, but RCI employee Anon posting on a European timeshare site revealed that they put NOTHING back to replace it.  We can probably expect the same when it comes to those extra points RCI will be selling.

So the new system will be a field day of trading up, designed right into the system, for some, while it will mean not being able to get an equal trade for many high season owners.

That is one of the reasons I would not even think of giving RCI either of my summer UK weeks or my summer OBX week under this system.





abdibile said:


> How is this "new weeks" system different from a points system?
> 
> Sounds to me like no more trading up like it was possible under the old weeks system.


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> The red herring, Roger, is your attempts to compare RCI with a retail business which it is not. RCI is a quasi-fiduciary middleman which facilitates exchanges. Its customers provide its product, which it then provides to other customers. Any comparison to a straight retail business, where the business buys a product from a producer for cash or makes it themselves and then sells it to customers is a completely different situation and totally irrelevant.


What type of business it is doesn't matter.  They're still subject to the laws of supply and demand.


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


> What type of business it is doesn't matter.  They're still subject to the laws of supply and demand.



It is the customers relationship to the business that is different.  With most businesses, a customer is only concerned with the price they pay on the day they want something.  With a timeshare exchange company, where the customer is depositing the product, they have to be concerned with an honest value going in, and then, sometimes much later an honest value going out.

If an exchange company strictly follows the laws of supply and demand, and can demonstrate that to a customer, then they can be trusted.  The problem is when they deviate from it in some ways such as loss leaders to big developers through overpointing to get new customers (members) or deviations to shunt inventory off to rentals for their own benefit or whatever.

RCI needs to publish a formula that shows to its customers that it is, indeed, honestly using supply and demand to set values, and not polluting the system with other add-ons.

With a retail business this is not necessary, as on the day you go to buy something the price looks suspect, you just go on to another store.  With an exchange company, you cannot do that.  The exchange company already has your deposit and in most cases you cannot get it back.  You are trapped into using them, and cannot just move on to a competitor.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Formula, Shmormula.*




Carolinian said:


> RCI needs to publish a formula that shows to its customers that it is, indeed, honestly using supply and demand to set values, and not polluting the system with other add-ons.


That will never work.  

RCI exists to make money for the shareholders of its corporate parent.  Thus it will always fall short of the expectations & preferences of regular, walking-around timeshare exchangers.  People can keep on wishing & waiting for reform, but it's going to be a long & fruitless wait no matter how hard people wish.  

What's needed instead of RCI, etc., is a non-profit (or not-for-profit, _mox nix_) exchange-only timeshare trade organization set up along credit union lines for the benefit of its timeshare exchanging members. 

Don't hold your breath waiting for that, either.  

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


----------



## miamidan

Carolinian,

Just days ago I thought you indicated that RCI had talked to no resorts about this and now they are sharing data with resorts who they have not talked to about buying extra trading power?  Where in this thread is that mentioned?  I have reviewed the thread and I see where people have said you can combine weeks but, I don't see where you can buy?  Is this speculation based on the points program where you can buy?


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> So, publishing the formula for setting value and the data on which it is based will lead to MORE manipulation????????  Wrong.  With that info public, it will make in darn near impossible to manipulate numbers.  It will be transparent and anyone concerned can see if things are legit.


How so?  If the formula is published, the developer will know precisely how much RCI values each "ingredient" in the formula, and will know which ingredients to push, and what to ignore.  How will that be good for owners?  A number of times you have stated that many of the older resorts are used by a majority of their owners, which suggests to me that if there is a way to increase trading power, it still won't happen, unless those items that will increase trade power are also in the best interest of those owners who use their weeks.   How many times have we heard that Orange Lake should have grills?  Exchangers would love to have them, but the owners have voted not to have them, becaus ethe owners don't want to pay for them.  





> Increasing demand is what should increase trading power, and anything that does so will be reflected in the demand numbers.[\quote] If that is the case, then ALL resorts in ALL seasons should start with the same base number.  But if we go that route, then where does that lead us?  Right back to what we have now.  These numbers RCI publishes will be one of two things:
> 
> 1) A base number which will be modified by a trade/demand factor - in which case, most people will not in fact be given this exact number of points when they deposit, nor pay this exact number for their exchange (the big difference between this system and RCI Points).
> 
> or 2) An average number - based on what an owner can generally expect to get for depositing a week 1 year out.  But again, the actual number will fluctuate based on supply and demand.
> 
> In either case, if RCI wants to encourage certain deposits (for whatever reason, whether to use for exchanger of their own rentals), the points at time of deposit will go up.  If they want to dicourage deposits (because they will be stuck with the week), the actual points will go down.
> 
> With either of the above systems, it would be in the best interest of the HOA to find out what their members experience, and publish their own information - RCI says your week will be worth about 50,000 points if you deposit it one year out, but the experience of our owners has been a bit less (or maybe more).
> 
> 
> 
> People are getting out of timesharing because of the changes in RCI, and the economy has added to that.  Back before the economy tanked, I was talking with someone who had been in the timeshare resale business for a long time and she told me that years ago no one mentioned complaints with RCI as their reason for selling, but in the last few years it had become a common comment.   Diverting exchange deposits to rentals, which you approve of, is what soured a lot of people on RCI.  This new exchange regime will do more of that.  The situation at Cruisin's resort will be more common that you want to believe, but at least their owners have an out in being dual affiliated with II.
> 
> 
> 
> People are getting out mostly because of the economy - people who couldn't really afford timeshares bought products they didn't understand.  And yes, many of them bought because of RCI, but we also have a newer generation of owners that never understood that the exchange company was distinct from their resort.  Sure, the developers and their sales staff are at fault, and RCI has allowed it to happen, but that doesn't make it RCI's fault.  Look at the numbers that have been posted in some of the other discussions - RCI puts inventory into the exchange system that is not from member deposits, at a rate greater than what is taken out for rentals.  That is not "diverting" exchange deposits - which I never approved of.  If those non-member weeks are segregated, perhaps those peak week owners will be hurt even more, as they will no longer be able to exchange into the newest resort, because the developer controlled inventory won't be in the exhchange pool.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I have been crossing swords with the same set of people, largely, since GPN (now RCI Points) was first rolled out.  I remember some of those early discussions, like when I pointed out that the language RCI's rep used in the TUG chat moderated by Fern on GPN (now RCI Points) back when they first rolled it out meant that RCI intended to rent out timeshare weeks to the general public.  The true beleivers jumped me then and said I was wrong.  Well, time has shown who was right, and it wasn't the true beleivers.
> 
> Unit size and number of bathrooms are not things factored into trading power.  They are things used to group different unit types when are then  evaluated for trading power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they are factors - which should show up as part of the supply/demand curve.  The idea of publishing the numbers is to give owners a sense of what their week is worth.  If unit size and number of bathrooms are not factored into trade power, then do you think RCI should or should not factor those into points values?  Why should they factor in unit size (which drives supply/demand, but is not a factor in trade power) when setting point values, but not unit quality, or resort location?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not want to drive RCI out of business.  On the contrary, I want to see them adopt policies  that will give them a solid basis for a fair business that , we can depend on.  That would, in fact, grow their business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do you keep suggesting that everyone should abandon RCI for the other exchange companies.  You do in fact want RCI driven out of business.
> 
> 
> Carolinian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The red herring, Roger, is your attempts to compare RCI with a retail business which it is not.  RCI is a quasi-fiduciary middleman which facilitates exchanges.  Its customers provide its product, which it then provides to other customers.  Any comparison to a straight retail business, where the business buys a product from a producer for cash or makes it themselves and then sells it to customers is a completely different situation and totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RCI is a business, just like Walmart of any retail establishment.  Their fiduciary responsibility is to the shareholders, not the members.  RCI is not a cooperative, though that type of exchange company might be a great idea.  If you don't like the idea of Walmart, how about my local used book store.  People trade books in to the store, and get credit for those books, which they then spend to buy other books.  Not a perfect match, because they don't pay a "fee" to trade.  Instead, they get half credit for their deposits, which they can then cash out or use to buy other books - in essence deposit two books, get one back and use no cash.
> 
> Say I deposit a hardback copy of a Harry Potter book, and he decides he can probably sell it for $10, then I get $5 in my account.  But if he has 10 copies already, he might only offer me $4, because her might have to lower the price of the books in order to sell them.  Do I really need to see his formula to decide if I want $4 for my book?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to RCI not being able to provide the formula and data, the fact is that they already do so on award status.  They print brochures that give the exact formula of what is needed for GC, SC, and hospitality status.  In fact I provided one to TUG some years ago and it was put up on the TUG advise section.  They also provide all of their resorts with the data that goes into the formula monthly.  Since they provide that formula, why in the heck do you try to defend them for not providing the formula on trading power?  The data will be extensive, but they already have to maintain it for their own purposes anyway, so why not share it online?  By providing the trading power numbers, their ''trade secret'' defense is already in the gutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I suppose KFC telling people what the spices are in their recipe (to avoid allergy problems) without identifying the amounts is giving up their right to a trade secret too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your argument about developers were true, then RCI is shooting themselves in the foot big time, as their new exchange regime would set off a stampede of developers to II. No, RCI will protect its developers in sales, and who will get screwed in the process will be the sold out independent resorts, which RCI is no longer getting a boatload of new members from.  Roger, I could turn your arguments around and say that you care nothing for the independent sold out resorts.   Cruisin cited a specific example and there will be a lot more of those when this hits the fan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So RCI either loses boatloads of existing loyal members, or doesn't get the new ones - perhaps they have learned that those new members will shortly convert to "existing members" and that they can't afford to lose either.  The same can be said of your argument - if they put the needs of the developers before their own, they're shooting themselves in the foot.
> 
> 
> Carolinian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, much of the ''trading up'' in the old system was illusory, either last minute trades when what once was a better trade has become distressed merchandise or overbuilt areas or time that should never have been red at all like hurricane season in the Caribbean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who says that trading up will be any different?  RCI will reduce the points allocated to a given week when it is deposited less than a year out.  The cost to me, as an exchanger will be whatever they gave to the owner.  If I deposited a full year out, I can afford to trade for something better than what I put in.  That's the same as it is now.
> 
> I honestly don't expect this new system to be that much different than what is available now, in terms of trade power.  The difference will be the incentive to not grab the best of whatever is available when you exchange.  In this economy, many many of those "middle class" owners won't want to pay extra to stay at the "high class" resorts.  Right now it doesn't cost them anything extra, so why not?  The same applies to that bigger unit, or the resort on the beach.
> 
> This new system is all about manipulating the behavior of members - by rewarding those who do what RCI needs, and providing a disincentive to keep them from doing what RCI doesn't want.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how RCI handles onging seraches going forward - whan we place an oigoing search, will we be able to say how many points we're willing to spend, or will we have to commit the whole value of a specific week?  That may in itself answer the question of who will get those top weeks as exchanges.
Click to expand...


----------



## rickandcindy23

In this process of valuing weeks for the upcoming changes, RCI has greatly improved my trading power for the very same weeks they devalued on 5/30/2009.  My weeks went from tigers to blue weeks, basically, on 5/30.  Now I see almost what I saw before.  I am happy with that.  

Colorado and North Carolina summer are still summer and should be treated better in RCI than my blue Colorado week.  There was barely a difference last year.  Now it's better, and I can accept it.  I have to accept it.

I have choices for my Foxrun weeks, but I have only RCI or the alternates for my Val Chatelle.


----------



## MichaelColey

Mel said:


> It will be interesting to see how RCI handles onging seraches going forward - whan we place an ongoing search, will we be able to say how many points we're willing to spend, or will we have to commit the whole value of a specific week? That may in itself answer the question of who will get those top weeks as exchanges.


I've been wondering about that, too.  And also whether or not we can set up an ongoing search for something that requires more trading value than we have, or if that can only be done through normal searches.

Also, I'm curious if there will be any changes to how last minute trades (<45 days out) will work.  Currently, you can trade ANYTHING for those.  If they set trading values as 5, 10, 15, ... 45, 50, will all last minute trades only take 5 credits?  Or will they take the full amount (like RCI Points)?  Or will they take the full value of the deposit used (like it is now)?


----------



## Carolinian

All along there have been posts on various timeshare boards from people at some resorts who have been shown various parts, usually numbers for their own resort, on the new exchange regime.  At other resorts, I have talked to managers and HOA presidents and RCI has not even told them that there will be a new program, much less any details.  My point all along has been that RCI's selective sharing of this information with some resorts (often involving large management companies or big developers) but not others (often independent sold out resorts) is a very, very bad sign about how fair the numbers are likely to be.  

Additionally, I have had some PM's on this issue (some at my TS4MS mailbox because my mailbox here has been full) with info that people wanted to share with me but because they or their resort had been given it confidentially they did not want to post it.  I will say from those, that it appears that more resorts than I would have thought are on to what RCI is up to and how it will impact them.  Some are even now advising members to deposit with II rather than RCI if they are dual affiliated. 

As to RCI selling extra ''points lite'', that info came from someone whose resort had been let in on some details, but it was unclear if that would start immediately when the system is rolled out or if it was an aspect that would be brought in as a later ''enhancement''.

One thing that also speaks ill of the way RCI is handling this is not being upfront with their members that this is coming.  They are very sneaky in not giving members enough notice to burn their existing deposits if they do not like what is coming down the pike.  If they were operating honestly, they would have given members a 6 months heads up.  I am glad that by participating in online BBS sites I have been warned and was able to zero out my RCI account, so I will not be caught with a deposit there been the boom is lowered.  The vast majority of members, however, will be caught flatfooted because of the sneaky and underhanded way RCI is handling this.  Much as there is to criticize about the way Delta airlines absorbed Northwest airlines, at least they gave NW ff members many months of notice to burn their miles before they substantially lost value by being converted to Delta miles.




miamidan said:


> Carolinian,
> 
> Just days ago I thought you indicated that RCI had talked to no resorts about this and now they are sharing data with resorts who they have not talked to about buying extra trading power?  Where in this thread is that mentioned?  I have reviewed the thread and I see where people have said you can combine weeks but, I don't see where you can buy?  Is this speculation based on the points program where you can buy?


----------



## Carolinian

As to the formula, an honest formula is based on two factors and two alone; 1) supply and 2) demand.  While a developer, in an honest system, may do things that he thinks may drive higher demand, that is only going to benefit him if the actual demand numbers do increase.  So those ''ingedients'' are not directly part of an honest formula but only indirectly impact demand.

Unit size and number of bathrooms have to do with categorizing different types of units, and trade power is then run against the different categories.  They are not per se factors of trade power.  IMHO, there should be a seperate category as well for oceanfront units as opposed to non-oceanfront at all beach resorts.  This is a major factor in rental and resale prices, and also in exchange demand, but is not reflected in RCI's current categorization.

As to my view of RCI let me repeat something I have said on these boards quite a few times for quite a few years.  IMHO RCI created far and away the best timeshare exchange system that has ever been created, and I would love to have that back.  Unfortunately when Cendant / Wyndham took it over they started monkeying with the system and have royally screwed it up. The best case scenario is if competition from other exchange companies would compell them to return to their roots and once again be the great exchange company they once were.

As usual, you defend all things RCI, including their rental program.  The number of weeks taken out compared with non-exchange inventory put in really tells you nothing.  It is the quality of what they are removing that matters.  What they are doing is cherry-picking the best weeks to divert to rentals.  Bootleg's info here and Anon's at a European site are consistent about that.  Both are or were RCI employees and had access to the info.  I could also see it on the OBX when ALL of the RCI rentals for our resort were coming in prime season and NONE in off season.  I saw that in our records myself, and it confirms what Bootleg and Anon have told us.

As to people getting out of timesharing, the comments by the longtime resale person on people over the past few years starting to frequently cite unhappiness with RCI as their reason for selling, something that previously had almost never been mentioned, happened BEFORE the economy tanked.

You always want to paint the best picture for RCI, and constantly blame developers for the way timeshare is sold and the exchanging expectations.  You conveniently forget the RCI produced and provided promotion films and materials that the developers use.  RCI owns a big part of that responsibility, too, even if you do not want to admit it.

Your view on an exchange company's fiduciary responsibilities differs considerably from that on similar discussions at The Timeshare Beat back when the rental controversy and the class action lawsuit were hot topics.  The view there was that an exchange company was more akin to a bank than a retail business, and DID have fiduciary or at least quasi-fiduciary responsibilities to their depositors.  I tend to agree, although in discussions on these boards, I tend to use the quasi-fiduciary term.  RCI itself has always used banking terms for its system, and it is a heck of a lot closer to what they do than is a retail business.




Mel said:


> How so?  If the formula is published, the developer will know precisely how much RCI values each "ingredient" in the formula, and will know which ingredients to push, and what to ignore.  How will that be good for owners?  A number of times you have stated that many of the older resorts are used by a majority of their owners, which suggests to me that if there is a way to increase trading power, it still won't happen, unless those items that will increase trade power are also in the best interest of those owners who use their weeks.   How many times have we heard that Orange Lake should have grills?  Exchangers would love to have them, but the owners have voted not to have them, becaus ethe owners don't want to pay for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing demand is what should increase trading power, and anything that does so will be reflected in the demand numbers.[\quote] If that is the case, then ALL resorts in ALL seasons should start with the same base number.  But if we go that route, then where does that lead us?  Right back to what we have now.  These numbers RCI publishes will be one of two things:
> 
> 1) A base number which will be modified by a trade/demand factor - in which case, most people will not in fact be given this exact number of points when they deposit, nor pay this exact number for their exchange (the big difference between this system and RCI Points).
> 
> or 2) An average number - based on what an owner can generally expect to get for depositing a week 1 year out.  But again, the actual number will fluctuate based on supply and demand.
> 
> In either case, if RCI wants to encourage certain deposits (for whatever reason, whether to use for exchanger of their own rentals), the points at time of deposit will go up.  If they want to dicourage deposits (because they will be stuck with the week), the actual points will go down.
> 
> With either of the above systems, it would be in the best interest of the HOA to find out what their members experience, and publish their own information - RCI says your week will be worth about 50,000 points if you deposit it one year out, but the experience of our owners has been a bit less (or maybe more).
> People are getting out mostly because of the economy - people who couldn't really afford timeshares bought products they didn't understand.  And yes, many of them bought because of RCI, but we also have a newer generation of owners that never understood that the exchange company was distinct from their resort.  Sure, the developers and their sales staff are at fault, and RCI has allowed it to happen, but that doesn't make it RCI's fault.  Look at the numbers that have been posted in some of the other discussions - RCI puts inventory into the exchange system that is not from member deposits, at a rate greater than what is taken out for rentals.  That is not "diverting" exchange deposits - which I never approved of.  If those non-member weeks are segregated, perhaps those peak week owners will be hurt even more, as they will no longer be able to exchange into the newest resort, because the developer controlled inventory won't be in the exhchange pool.
> Yes they are factors - which should show up as part of the supply/demand curve.  The idea of publishing the numbers is to give owners a sense of what their week is worth.  If unit size and number of bathrooms are not factored into trade power, then do you think RCI should or should not factor those into points values?  Why should they factor in unit size (which drives supply/demand, but is not a factor in trade power) when setting point values, but not unit quality, or resort location?Then why do you keep suggesting that everyone should abandon RCI for the other exchange companies.  You do in fact want RCI driven out of business.
> 
> RCI is a business, just like Walmart of any retail establishment.  Their fiduciary responsibility is to the shareholders, not the members.  RCI is not a cooperative, though that type of exchange company might be a great idea.  If you don't like the idea of Walmart, how about my local used book store.  People trade books in to the store, and get credit for those books, which they then spend to buy other books.  Not a perfect match, because they don't pay a "fee" to trade.  Instead, they get half credit for their deposits, which they can then cash out or use to buy other books - in essence deposit two books, get one back and use no cash.
> 
> Say I deposit a hardback copy of a Harry Potter book, and he decides he can probably sell it for $10, then I get $5 in my account.  But if he has 10 copies already, he might only offer me $4, because her might have to lower the price of the books in order to sell them.  Do I really need to see his formula to decide if I want $4 for my book?
> 
> And I suppose KFC telling people what the spices are in their recipe (to avoid allergy problems) without identifying the amounts is giving up their right to a trade secret too?
> So RCI either loses boatloads of existing loyal members, or doesn't get the new ones - perhaps they have learned that those new members will shortly convert to "existing members" and that they can't afford to lose either.  The same can be said of your argument - if they put the needs of the developers before their own, they're shooting themselves in the foot.
> And who says that trading up will be any different?  RCI will reduce the points allocated to a given week when it is deposited less than a year out.  The cost to me, as an exchanger will be whatever they gave to the owner.  If I deposited a full year out, I can afford to trade for something better than what I put in.  That's the same as it is now.
> 
> I honestly don't expect this new system to be that much different than what is available now, in terms of trade power.  The difference will be the incentive to not grab the best of whatever is available when you exchange.  In this economy, many many of those "middle class" owners won't want to pay extra to stay at the "high class" resorts.  Right now it doesn't cost them anything extra, so why not?  The same applies to that bigger unit, or the resort on the beach.
> 
> This new system is all about manipulating the behavior of members - by rewarding those who do what RCI needs, and providing a disincentive to keep them from doing what RCI doesn't want.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how RCI handles onging seraches going forward - whan we place an oigoing search, will we be able to say how many points we're willing to spend, or will we have to commit the whole value of a specific week?  That may in itself answer the question of who will get those top weeks as exchanges.
Click to expand...


----------



## Tommart

*My Two Cents*

Carolinian,
I agree with your comments--especially that supply and demand will rule things.  RCI could try to give one unit higher ratings, but if the ratings are too high, the supply/demand will get out of balance.

I am looking forward to the change, even though I expect that I'll be unhappy with some aspects.  At least I'll be able to trade in two weeks to get a ski or beach week that I never had the opportunity under the current system.

I am interested in how RCI will handle the details.

Ocean view and city view for a beach resort is an example.  Ski-out versus bus ride could be another example for a ski resort.

At my home unit, week 25 is more desirable (school's out) than week 24, but week 24 is far more desirable than week 21.  All are RED.  Will each of these weeks receive the same points, or does each week get a different points value?  I believe RCI needs to have sub-categories, e.g. RED, RED-plus, and RED-prime to help assign points within each resort.

The bottom-line is that I look forward to the change and knowing how many points my units are worth and what I'll need to "pay" to get any of the resorts available on RCI.  

I do not like the current RCI weeks approach where I only have option to exchange for weeks that are of equal or lessor value than one of my single weeks.


----------



## Tommart

*Soliciting Input*

I'm not concerned about how many developers or HOAs have been informed on the upcoming change.

But it would have been good public relations for RCI to describe the proposed system to all it's members (you and I), and ask our input.

I believe they would have received some valuable responses.

As it is, it appears RCI doesn't believe our input is worthwhile.


----------



## cruisin

Tommart said:


> Carolinian,
> I agree with your comments--especially that supply and demand will rule things.  RCI could try to give one unit higher ratings, but if the ratings are too high, the supply/demand will get out of balance.
> 
> I am looking forward to the change, even though I expect that I'll be unhappy with some aspects.  At least I'll be able to trade in two weeks to get a ski or beach week that I never had the opportunity under the current system.
> 
> I am interested in how RCI will handle the details.
> 
> Ocean view and city view for a beach resort is an example.  Ski-out versus bus ride could be another example for a ski resort.
> 
> At my home unit, week 25 is more desirable (school's out) than week 24, but week 24 is far more desirable than week 21.  All are RED.  Will each of these weeks receive the same points, or does each week get a different points value?  I believe RCI needs to have sub-categories, e.g. RED, RED-plus, and RED-prime to help assign points within each resort.
> 
> The bottom-line is that I look forward to the change and knowing how many points my units are worth and what I'll need to "pay" to get any of the resorts available on RCI.
> 
> I do not like the current RCI weeks approach where I only have option to exchange for weeks that are of equal or lessor value than one of my single weeks.



At my resort every week was given a point value, there are many different point values, even the prime summer weeks increase by a point each week in June, peak for 4 weeks around  July and start dropping by a point each week in August


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> All along there have been posts on various timeshare boards from people at some resorts who have been shown various parts, usually numbers for their own resort, on the new exchange regime.  At other resorts, I have talked to managers and HOA presidents and RCI has not even told them that there will be a new program, much less any details.  My point all along has been that RCI's selective sharing of this information with some resorts (often involving large management companies or big developers) but not others (often independent sold out resorts) is a very, very bad sign about how fair the numbers are likely to be.
> 
> Additionally, I have had some PM's on this issue (some at my TS4MS mailbox because my mailbox here has been full) with info that people wanted to share with me but because they or their resort had been given it confidentially they did not want to post it.  I will say from those, that it appears that more resorts than I would have thought are on to what RCI is up to and how it will impact them.  Some are even now advising members to deposit with II rather than RCI if they are dual affiliated.
> 
> As to RCI selling extra ''points lite'', that info came from someone whose resort had been let in on some details, but it was unclear if that would start immediately when the system is rolled out or if it was an aspect that would be brought in as a later ''enhancement''.


So which is it - RCI isn't sharing the information with the smaller resorts, or is sharing?  On the one hand, you accuse them of sharing only with those who will rejoice over the way they will be treated under the new system, but you than state you're hearing from people who have in fact seen numbers, and are unhappy.  Which is it?

Are these people who are complaining being shown the big picture - what the numbers are at all resorts - or what their own numbers are.  If they're not being shown the big picture, how can they judge whether the system is fair?  Perhaps if all these people are unhappy, it suggests that the number of points will be lower accross the board.  

Consider also that your (and their) assumptions about demand might bot in fact be true.  You assume that because there is almost always availability in Orlando that it is overbuilt, and that demand is low in everything but peak season - you use a chart from RCI Europe to try to prove your point.  But experience tells me that demand is actually fairly steady all year, and higher than most other places.  



Carolinian said:


> As to the formula, an honest formula is based on two factors and two alone; 1) supply and 2) demand.  While a developer, in an honest system, may do things that he thinks may drive higher demand, that is only going to benefit him if the actual demand numbers do increase.  So those ''ingedients'' are not directly part of an honest formula but only indirectly impact demand.


Then what exactly is this "formula" that you want RCI to divulge?  If in fact trade power is only about supply and demand, then there really isn't a formula to publish, is there?



> Unit size and number of bathrooms have to do with categorizing different types of units, and trade power is then run against the different categories.  They are not per se factors of trade power.  IMHO, there should be a seperate category as well for oceanfront units as opposed to non-oceanfront at all beach resorts.  This is a major factor in rental and resale prices, and also in exchange demand, but is not reflected in RCI's current categorization.
> 
> As to my view of RCI let me repeat something I have said on these boards quite a few times for quite a few years.  IMHO RCI created far and away the best timeshare exchange system that has ever been created, and I would love to have that back.  Unfortunately when Cendant / Wyndham took it over they started monkeying with the system and have royally screwed it up. The best case scenario is if competition from other exchange companies would compell them to return to their roots and once again be the great exchange company they once were.


 This is your opinion.  Some of us don't think Cendat damaged the system any more than would have happened if it hadn't been sold to them.  There are many factors that have caused changes, and while Cendant has seen us through most of those changes, and made some poor decisions, I don't think they are any different than some of the decisions made by other smaller exchange companies.



> As usual, you defend all things RCI, including their rental program.  The number of weeks taken out compared with non-exchange inventory put in really tells you nothing.  It is the quality of what they are removing that matters.  What they are doing is cherry-picking the best weeks to divert to rentals.  Bootleg's info here and Anon's at a European site are consistent about that.  Both are or were RCI employees and had access to the info.  I could also see it on the OBX when ALL of the RCI rentals for our resort were coming in prime season and NONE in off season.  I saw that in our records myself, and it confirms what Bootleg and Anon have told us.


As usual, you accuse me of something I havne't done.  I don't defend RCI's rental program, but try to put it in perspective.  Did you look at the numbers in RCI's disclosure about the quality of week that were put into the exchange program from outside?  Have you even considered what many of those week must have been, by definition?

How many TUG members alone have exchanged into brand now resorts?  How many of those weeks had to have come from developer deposits?  Those are not member deposits!



> As to people getting out of timesharing, the comments by the longtime resale person on people over the past few years starting to frequently cite unhappiness with RCI as their reason for selling, something that previously had almost never been mentioned, happened BEFORE the economy tanked.
> 
> You always want to paint the best picture for RCI, and constantly blame developers for the way timeshare is sold and the exchanging expectations.  You conveniently forget the RCI produced and provided promotion films and materials that the developers use.  RCI owns a big part of that responsibility, too, even if you do not want to admit it.


No, I have in fact said that RCI has allowed these sales tactics to be used, and has allowed their promotional materials to be used in an inappropriate way, but untimately the responsibility lies both with the developer for doing so, and with the people who have bought from them without doing any due diligence.  People wouldn't spend anywhere near that kind of money on any other purchase without doing some research first.  If it sounds to good to be true...


> Your view on an exchange company's fiduciary responsibilities differs considerably from that on similar discussions at The Timeshare Beat back when the rental controversy and the class action lawsuit were hot topics.  The view there was that an exchange company was more akin to a bank than a retail business, and DID have fiduciary or at least quasi-fiduciary responsibilities to their depositors.  I tend to agree, although in discussions on these boards, I tend to use the quasi-fiduciary term.  RCI itself has always used banking terms for its system, and it is a heck of a lot closer to what they do than is a retail business.


RCI does not have a fiduciary responsibility to its members, and wishing they did will not cause them to have one either.  They have contractual obligation to provide an exchange service.  Before Cendant purchased RCI, Developer inventory made its way into the exchange system, and RCI gave bonus week certificates" to the developer in exchange.  We all know how valuable those were, don't we?  At some point, the developer decided they didn't want those - so the question becomes either how to compensate the developers for their inventory, or how to satisfy demand for their resorts without that inventory.  Obviously RCI chose the former - take the inventory and find a way to satisfy the developers. 

We're having these discussions about RCI rentals because someone thinks RCI has cheated someone.  Perhaps the people who deposited those weeks should be asked if they were given something of equivalent value in exchange.  If they were, what RCI chose to do with their deposits is moot!  RCI met their contractual (and even fiduciary if you believe it exists) obligation.

You say you would love to have the old RCI back.  Well, that's not going to happen, and I suspect many of us don't want it back.  Do you really want to return to the days when you called RCI and asked for an exchange, and they gave you only what you asked for, didn't offer that there was in fact a 3BR unit available instead of the 1BR that would fit your family of 4?  Do you really wish to return to a system where owners have no idea what their week is worth, and have to rely on what the salesmen tell them, with not real backup?  

You say on the one hand that you want RCI to be a great exchange company, but on the other hand you insist that their attempt to do just that is phony.  Give them a chance - if it's really as bad as the doom and gloom you're predicting, I'll follow you out that door, but don't encourage people to slam the door before even seeing what the changes are.


----------



## Tommart

*Called RCI*



cruisin said:


> At my resort every week was given a point value, there are many different point values, even the prime summer weeks increase by a point each week in June, peak for 4 weeks around  July and start dropping by a point each week in August



I called RCI Weeks representative just for kicks.

She told me that RCI is changing the weeks system, and it will occur shortly, but she's not at liberty to tell me when.

She stated that there really is no change to how resorts, units, and weeks are rated.  The main change is that RCI will now reveal the points system that it currently is using.  

She stated that all changes are positive.  Other changes are;

1.  We'll be able to see the value of our week before we deposit it, and see how the value of the deposit increases the further the check-in is away.

2.  We will keep the surplus points if our week is worth more than the exchanged week.

3.  We will see all available resorts and be able to deposit multiple weeks to qualify for a week worth more than any of our single weeks.

I look forward to the change.


----------



## Carolinian

Mel, as usual you are trying to set up a straw man and then knock it down.  Some resorts have been provided information and others have not even been told a change is coming, much less given any information on it. Do you understand now or do I have to keep explaining it to you??????

In terms of a formula, there is an obvious time of deposit adjustment, which makes sense.  Otherwise, it should be pure supply and demand.  It should be a relatively simple thing to publish.  The key is to get it out in the open and make certain that they are not putting their thumb on the scales on other things like double counting some things that are merely drivers of demand.

RCI publishes its formula for qualifying award status.  They also provide all the supporting data on that to resorts monthly.  Real transparency screams that they do that for their Points Lite numbers as well.

Who cares if a resort is ''brand new''?  I cannot think of many less significant factors in choosing an exchange.  Location is number one by far.  You take the brand new resort in Podunk, Iowa; I'll take that older resort Allen House in London, thank you!

You wouldn't like the old RCI back, as in before all the rental shananigans that you support (or in your language ''try to put in perspective'')?  Personally I liked having a lot of good weeks availible that just aren't there any more because they are being rented out instead.  Years ago I could see much more availibility in the UK, for example, with an OBX blue week, than I can see today with a summer UK week (and that week is form a resort that itself almost never shows availibility any time of the year).

RCI did not just ''allow'' the sales tactics you complain of by developers.  They created marketing materials that were part and parcel of them.  Now RCI is changing the rules that were explained in RCI's own materials and were the basis upon which many purchased timeshare.  That is just underhanded.

Your last line reminds me of the statement by a Congressional leader on a major recent piece of legislation that ''we need to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it''.  No, it was incumbent on Congress and it is incumbent on RCI to explain such changes beforehand.  The public should not have a pig in a poke crammed down their throats.  RCI should come clean and reveal the program with a six month period for those who do not like it to get their deposits out of the system before it hits.  Airlines have the integrity to do that for their frequent flyers when there are significant program changes with mergers.  RCI should have the integrity to do that with this sea change in their program.

RCI's dealings with both its resort affiliates and its individual members on this change of exchange regime totally lack transparency.

As to the issue of fiduciary relationships, or quasi-fiduciary relationships, I think the industry insiders who spoke to this issue in The Timeshare Beat were a lot more convincing than your position.  An exchange company is a LOT more similar to a bank in its operations than it is to a retail business, and timeshare depositors should be protected much like bank depositors. The issue of RCI's T&C being an unenforcible contract of adhesion was also thoroughly aired there, but I am sure you disagree with that too.  





Mel said:


> So which is it - RCI isn't sharing the information with the smaller resorts, or is sharing?  On the one hand, you accuse them of sharing only with those who will rejoice over the way they will be treated under the new system, but you than state you're hearing from people who have in fact seen numbers, and are unhappy.  Which is it?
> 
> Are these people who are complaining being shown the big picture - what the numbers are at all resorts - or what their own numbers are.  If they're not being shown the big picture, how can they judge whether the system is fair?  Perhaps if all these people are unhappy, it suggests that the number of points will be lower accross the board.
> 
> Consider also that your (and their) assumptions about demand might bot in fact be true.  You assume that because there is almost always availability in Orlando that it is overbuilt, and that demand is low in everything but peak season - you use a chart from RCI Europe to try to prove your point.  But experience tells me that demand is actually fairly steady all year, and higher than most other places.
> 
> Then what exactly is this "formula" that you want RCI to divulge?  If in fact trade power is only about supply and demand, then there really isn't a formula to publish, is there?
> 
> This is your opinion.  Some of us don't think Cendat damaged the system any more than would have happened if it hadn't been sold to them.  There are many factors that have caused changes, and while Cendant has seen us through most of those changes, and made some poor decisions, I don't think they are any different than some of the decisions made by other smaller exchange companies.
> 
> As usual, you accuse me of something I havne't done.  I don't defend RCI's rental program, but try to put it in perspective.  Did you look at the numbers in RCI's disclosure about the quality of week that were put into the exchange program from outside?  Have you even considered what many of those week must have been, by definition?
> 
> How many TUG members alone have exchanged into brand now resorts?  How many of those weeks had to have come from developer deposits?  Those are not member deposits!
> 
> No, I have in fact said that RCI has allowed these sales tactics to be used, and has allowed their promotional materials to be used in an inappropriate way, but untimately the responsibility lies both with the developer for doing so, and with the people who have bought from them without doing any due diligence.  People wouldn't spend anywhere near that kind of money on any other purchase without doing some research first.  If it sounds to good to be true...
> 
> RCI does not have a fiduciary responsibility to its members, and wishing they did will not cause them to have one either.  They have contractual obligation to provide an exchange service.  Before Cendant purchased RCI, Developer inventory made its way into the exchange system, and RCI gave bonus week certificates" to the developer in exchange.  We all know how valuable those were, don't we?  At some point, the developer decided they didn't want those - so the question becomes either how to compensate the developers for their inventory, or how to satisfy demand for their resorts without that inventory.  Obviously RCI chose the former - take the inventory and find a way to satisfy the developers.
> 
> We're having these discussions about RCI rentals because someone thinks RCI has cheated someone.  Perhaps the people who deposited those weeks should be asked if they were given something of equivalent value in exchange.  If they were, what RCI chose to do with their deposits is moot!  RCI met their contractual (and even fiduciary if you believe it exists) obligation.
> 
> You say you would love to have the old RCI back.  Well, that's not going to happen, and I suspect many of us don't want it back.  Do you really want to return to the days when you called RCI and asked for an exchange, and they gave you only what you asked for, didn't offer that there was in fact a 3BR unit available instead of the 1BR that would fit your family of 4?  Do you really wish to return to a system where owners have no idea what their week is worth, and have to rely on what the salesmen tell them, with not real backup?
> 
> You say on the one hand that you want RCI to be a great exchange company, but on the other hand you insist that their attempt to do just that is phony.  Give them a chance - if it's really as bad as the doom and gloom you're predicting, I'll follow you out that door, but don't encourage people to slam the door before even seeing what the changes are.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*PFD Availble For "Points Lite" Change Back ?*




Tommart said:


> We will keep the surplus points if our week is worth more than the exchanged week.


Sounds pretty much like just another straight-points timeshare exchange system -- essentially similar to the basics of the existing RCI Points system -- so it looks like what we're in line for is 2 parallel RCI points-based timeshare exchange systems operating side by side.  (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

I can't help wondering how the switch from RCI Weeks to RCI Points Lite will affect the interconnections & interrelationships between RCI Points & the new RCI Points Lite (formerly, traditional RCI Weeks). 

For example, will straight-weeks owners still be able to do PFD ? 

With "change back" as a feature of Points Lite, will straight-weeks owners be able to do PFD with the "change back" they get when they use a large _el primo_ Points Lite week as trade bait for exchanging into a humbler, off-season timeshare ? 

However the details of Pointe Lite play out, they're bound to keep us TUG-BBS types on our toes -- not to mention causing our friend Carolinian to reach for the Maalox as the RCI timeshare world lurches farther & farther from the pre-Cendant _Good Old Days_.  

So it goes.

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


----------



## "Roger"

Tommart said:


> ...She stated that all changes are positive.  Other changes are;
> 
> 1.  We'll be able to see the value of our week before we deposit it, and see how the value of the deposit increases the further the check-in is away.
> 
> 2.  We will keep the surplus points if our week is worth more than the exchanged week.
> 
> 3.  We will see all available resorts and be able to deposit multiple weeks to qualify for a week worth more than any of our single weeks.
> 
> I look forward to the change.


These are all positive changes.  I would add another biggie:  People will now be able to view how much a unit is valued before they buy.  (The RCI representative probably did not mention this because she was speaking to an existing owner.)

Disney, Hyatt, Hilton, and Marriott are all well known names with reputations to defend.  I don't see it as an accident that all of them avoid the use of the word "timesharing" (and did so going back to the good all days - the word conjured up scam, etc. even then, maybe especially, back then).

What else do these systems have in common?  With the recent conversion by Marriott, they have all chosen to use a points based system.  Not surprising, given the cited reasons above which make for a more fair system.  

I might mention, in closing, that not one of them reveal how they have decided which units get how many points.  Apparently, they neither see this as essential information, nor, believe that giving prices without the method for determining these prices is worse than not giving prices at all.


----------



## Carolinian

While most thinking people are simply not going to do the 2 m/f's plus one exchange fee for one trade, as simply renting from RCI is likely to be a better deal, you do raise an interesting question, and one I have not heard any inklings about.  That is the heretofore scandalously fraudulent (to Weeks) relationship between Points and Weeks based on the crossover grids.

It seems to me that RCI will probably be forced to have some multiplier to convert one to the other now that it has complete and detailed sets of numbers for both systems.  That would be one of the few positives of this new regime, I will admit, as the current grids allow Points members to raid the better Weeks inventory at ripoff points levels.  Maintaining the current grids in the face of having fuller sets of values published for both systems would seem to just set themselves up for another lawsuit (this one hopefully by a state AG not by an unethical shyster class action attorney like the last one).





AwayWeGo said:


> Sounds pretty much like just another straight-points timeshare exchange system -- essentially similar to the basics of the existing RCI Points system -- so it looks like what we're in line for is 2 parallel RCI points-based timeshare exchange systems operating side by side.  (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
> 
> I can't help wondering how the switch from RCI Weeks to RCI Points Lite will affect the interconnections & interrelationships between RCI Points & the new RCI Points Lite (formerly, traditional RCI Weeks).
> 
> For example, will straight-weeks owners still be able to do PFD ?
> 
> With "change back" as a feature of Points Lite, will straight-weeks owners be able to do PFD with the "change back" they get when they use a large _el primo_ Points Lite week as trade bait for exchanging into a humbler, off-season timeshare ?
> 
> However the details of Pointe Lite play out, they're bound to keep us TUG-BBS types on our toes -- not to mention causing our friend Carolinian to reach for the Maalox as the RCI timeshare world lurches farther & farther from the pre-Cendant _Good Old Days_.
> 
> So it goes.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Tommart

*Maybe true for you*



Carolinian said:


> While most thinking people are simply not going to do the 2 m/f's plus one exchange fee for one trade, as simply renting from RCI is likely to be a better deal.......



I won't think twice about giving up two weeks.

I pay $525 MF for my August two-bedroom locked Woodstone unit.  I trade it as two one-bedrooms.

Last year, I traded one for a week at Paniolo Greens on the Big Island, and the second for a week at Lifetime in Honolulu.

I just checked.  I could rent a week at Paniolo Greens for at little over $1,300 before taxes through RCI.  I'll take the $169 exchange plus half of my annual MF.  Even if it would have required giving up both sides, "$525 + $169" is better than renting a prime resort/week.

By the way, we have never stayed at Woodstone in August.  The week has too much trade value.  We use bonus weeks for Woodstone and typically stay in late May.  This year we stayed over Labor Day weekend.

We look for opportunities to use bonus weeks, which is a variation of renting.

But if I need to give up both sides of my unit for a wonderful resort/week, I will.


----------



## markel

I'm kinda of following this thread on and off and am trying to digest what to expect with the "new" RCI enhancements. BUT, what will this mean with Wyndham pts. deposits?  Obviously no fixed week at a resort to assign value to, so what do you think I should expect when I deposit my Wyndham pts. i.e. 28,42,70K etc.  Will these deposits be assigned a value that I can see? 

Mark


----------



## bnoble

I don't think anyone knows for sure.  We'll have to see.  I think it is *likely* that it will be assigned a visible value, but you never know until you know.


----------



## MuranoJo

I agree.  There is so much conjecture and heresy, who really knows for sure.
I'm just glad I got my two weeks in HI next year locked in, and I'll play with whatever comes of this, come what may.


----------



## Mel

markel said:


> I'm kinda of following this thread on and off and am trying to digest what to expect with the "new" RCI enhancements. BUT, what will this mean with Wyndham pts. deposits?  Obviously no fixed week at a resort to assign value to, so what do you think I should expect when I deposit my Wyndham pts. i.e. 28,42,70K etc.  Will these deposits be assigned a value that I can see?


I would expect RCI to come up with a conversion factor, just as they do for most point systems that operate within RCI Points.  What should be interesting is to see if that conversion factor takes into account the time of deposit.

When you deposit 28,000 Wyndham points, right now they assign you a unit the Wyndham previously deposited based on usage patterns, and I would expect RCI to give Wyndham the same incentive as other owners to deposit 1 year out.  If some of Wyndham's deposits were made 1 year out, and others 10 months out as they got a better idea of this year's usage, their individual deposits might have different values - will they work with RCI to assign equal numbers of points among the Wyndham members, or will it be first-come first-serve (or some other system) where you get whatever week is next in the queu?  Fairness would suggest you should get an average value, and still might result in variability from month to month.It also would require extra steps on the part of RCI - which may be why RCI will be shut down for an extended time before the new system's release.


----------



## Mel

Tommart said:


> Carolinian,
> I agree with your comments--especially that supply and demand will rule things.  RCI could try to give one unit higher ratings, but if the ratings are too high, the supply/demand will get out of balance.


Carolinian's argument is that supply and demand won't in fact rule - he is afraid that RCI will give a unit higher ratings, and it will be allowed to keep those ratings.  He has no faith that they system will adjust for supply and demand.

Your point, that poor demand and excessive supply will drive down the value of a resort given a too-high rating, has been made several times, but Carolinian insists we are all wrong. 

He also doesn't believe that you or anyone else will be happy to trade multiple weeks for a single great trade.


----------



## MichaelColey

For those who have seen any details, is there any information you can share publicly? Numerical ranges of trading values? Granularity of the values? Difference between the worst weeks, average weeks and best weeks? How the timing of the deposit affects trading value?

One potential positive for resorts is that they might be able to collect some maintenance fees earlier when people learn that you can maximize your trading value by depositing X months out. (RCI says 9 months, but many have said 12.) I suspect that many deposit 3-6 months out (sometimes because they don't pay maintenance fees until they're due) and don't get full trading value.


----------



## bnoble

> What should be interesting is to see if that conversion factor takes into account the time of deposit.
> 
> When you deposit 28,000 Wyndham points, right now they assign you a unit the Wyndham previously deposited based on usage patterns, and I would expect RCI to give Wyndham the same incentive as other owners to deposit 1 year out.


Not quite.  Most of the deposits are "generic" deposits, and assigned the "average" from all deposits in their size/season.  You have to explicitly ask for a "visible" which is assigned from a pre-deposited week, but those are uncommon and becoming downright rare.

I expect two things to happen.

1: All Wyndham deposits will be generic (averaged) going forward, completely decoupling "owner" deposits from deposited units.

2: The average values will be assigned "known" credit values, just like everything else.

That's just a guess though.  I have no reason to believe that's really what will happen.


----------



## bnoble

> For those who have seen any details, is there any information you can share publicly?


I vaguely recall seeing some details, but I can't remember if it was here or OT.


----------



## krj9999

Saw this on the Grandview owners website, I haven't received the details yet, perhaps they will come in the mail today.  FYI Michael, MFs are unchanged at Grandview for 2011.

RCI Enhancement (Weeks Owners Only) 
10/15/2010

By now you should have received the New RCI Enhancement information that offers you greater flexibility and more choices. 

Please be reminded in order to take advantage and Maximize your Week(s) Trading Power with RCI your Maintenance fee must be paid in full on or before January 1, 2011.

Please visit our website at www.dailymanagementresorts.com to make payment and download the Owner Options Form and let us know how you plan to utilize your 2011 Week. Or contact your home resort for assistance.

Please visit this RCI link for more information

www.rci.com/weeksenhancements 





MichaelColey said:


> For those who have seen any details, is there any information you can share publicly? Numerical ranges of trading values? Granularity of the values? Difference between the worst weeks, average weeks and best weeks? How the timing of the deposit affects trading value?
> 
> One potential positive for resorts is that they might be able to collect some maintenance fees earlier when people learn that you can maximize your trading value by depositing X months out. (RCI says 9 months, but many have said 12.) I suspect that many deposit 3-6 months out (sometimes because they don't pay maintenance fees until they're due) and don't get full trading value.


----------



## Carolinian

Lockouts are a whole different ballgame and the economics are different.  If I had a lockout, I would trade it as seperate units, too.  I wonder if the new Points Lite will still allow you to do that and achieve the same value?




Tommart said:


> I won't think twice about giving up two weeks.
> 
> I pay $525 MF for my August two-bedroom locked Woodstone unit.  I trade it as two one-bedrooms.
> 
> Last year, I traded one for a week at Paniolo Greens on the Big Island, and the second for a week at Lifetime in Honolulu.
> 
> I just checked.  I could rent a week at Paniolo Greens for at little over $1,300 before taxes through RCI.  I'll take the $169 exchange plus half of my annual MF.  Even if it would have required giving up both sides, "$525 + $169" is better than renting a prime resort/week.
> 
> By the way, we have never stayed at Woodstone in August.  The week has too much trade value.  We use bonus weeks for Woodstone and typically stay in late May.  This year we stayed over Labor Day weekend.
> 
> We look for opportunities to use bonus weeks, which is a variation of renting.
> 
> But if I need to give up both sides of my unit for a wonderful resort/week, I will.


----------



## Carolinian

If they were running a pure exchange system, without having their fingers in the till with their rentals to the general public, and if they were not trying to cozy up to major developers to keep them with RCI for new members, the liklihood of a fair system would be much higher.  Given extraneous factors like that, however, which are there for the viewing in their current published system, RCI Points, there is very likely going to be an RCI thumb on the scales.





Mel said:


> Carolinian's argument is that supply and demand won't in fact rule - he is afraid that RCI will give a unit higher ratings, and it will be allowed to keep those ratings.  He has no faith that they system will adjust for supply and demand.
> 
> Your point, that poor demand and excessive supply will drive down the value of a resort given a too-high rating, has been made several times, but Carolinian insists we are all wrong.
> 
> He also doesn't believe that you or anyone else will be happy to trade multiple weeks for a single great trade.


----------



## Carolinian

You would think that someone in marketing would be smart enough to avoid that Orwellian term of corporate-speak ''enhancement''.  Everyone who keeps up with frequent flyer programs, for example, dreads the news that their program is going to have an ''enhancement''.  Members start wondering what benefit(s) they are about to lose.

Indeed, I was just over on FlyerTalk, reading a thread on possible changes with the merger of Continental and United and found this posted today by another poster-

_* ''whenever I see the word "enhancement" used in context with any airline discussion I do get squeamish.''
*_

I suspect it would be interesting to do a search for the word ''enhancement'' on FlyerTalk.




krj9999 said:


> Saw this on the Grandview owners website, I haven't received the details yet, perhaps they will come in the mail today.  FYI Michael, MFs are unchanged at Grandview for 2011.
> 
> RCI Enhancement (Weeks Owners Only)
> 10/15/2010
> 
> By now you should have received the New RCI Enhancement information that offers you greater flexibility and more choices.
> 
> Please be reminded in order to take advantage and Maximize your Week(s) Trading Power with RCI your Maintenance fee must be paid in full on or before January 1, 2011.
> 
> Please visit our website at www.dailymanagementresorts.com to make payment and download the Owner Options Form and let us know how you plan to utilize your 2011 Week. Or contact your home resort for assistance.
> 
> Please visit this RCI link for more information
> 
> www.rci.com/weeksenhancements


----------



## timeos2

*How is it assigned?*



Carolinian said:


> You would think that someone in marketing would be smart enough to avoid that Orwellian term of corporate-speak ''enhancement''.  Everyone who keeps up with frequent flyer programs, for example, dreads the news that their program is going to have an ''enhancement''.  Members start wondering what benefit(s) they are about to lose.



The question keeps getting asked "What are the trading power criteria - without that values are worthless". 

Here is the answer per RCI Weeks.

This link is part of the overall RCI presentation regarding the new ability of members to see trade values. And it specifically says 

"The trading power of your deposit isn’t changing! It has always been there and is used to determine the exchange options available to you, and it still will. The added flexibility is in that now you will SEE the trading power of your deposit, as well as the trading power of available exchange vacations. For a detailed refresher on how we’ve calculated your Deposit Trading Power for the last 35 years, click here."

So as I originally asked when this thread started - how does releasing the information hidden but applied for 35+ years hurt members?  To me it does not. It is a long overdue change that benefits members.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

timeos2 said:


> So as I originally asked when this thread started - how does releasing the information hidden but applied for 35+ years hurt members?  To me it does not. It is a long overdue change that benefits members.



I keep coming back to that same page as well, John.

To me it simply boils down as follows.

I have a week in hand, and they tell me what my week is worth. I can go to the RCI store, where all of the prices are marked on everything, I can look at what i can get for my week, and decide whether or not I want to do business.

Or I can go to a RCI store where before I'm even allowed into the store I have to give them my week and they give me a credit slip that has some invisible coding on it.  Then as I wander around the aisles nothing is on display and no prices are marked. I have to ask what is available, and some clerk takes my credit slip, then comes back and says, based on what you gave us these are the things I can give you.  If I don't like anything they offer, I say no thanks and I get my credit slip back.  If none of the aisles have anything I like, I can leave.  But when I leave I have to leave my credit slip behind, where it will be stored until I come back.

++++

After all of the hand waving and bubbling and frothing and prognosticating simmers down, I simply can't fathom how the first situation isn't vastly better than the second.


----------



## Carolinian

Of course this comes from RCI who also told us that trading power had not changed some months ago when a lot of Tuggers in fact noticed that their trading power had indeed been severely whacked.  It also comes from RCI whose employees were regularly telling members that they were not renting weeks out of the exchange pool when they ultimately had to admit that they were.  RCI has had a history of not being truthful with its members, so only the most loyal of the battalion of koolaid drinkers would take this at face value.

Right now, we know that much of the year for many of the resorts in Orlando, the trading power is the same as for a blue week most anywhere, as blue weeks easily trade in, due to the oversupply from Orlando being overbuilt.  We will see if that is still true when the numbers come out.  If it is not, then they have definitely moved the goalposts. (Of course there are some of the more demanded resorts like DVC that will always outpreform the rest of the Orlando market as well as prime weeks that will deserve high value).  I could substitute Canary Islands, Branson, or India for Orlando, as it is the same principle of oversupply from overbuilding.  But Orlando will be the main test of the integrity of the new numbers in the American market, so we will see right there whether RCI is being honest or not.





timeos2 said:


> The question keeps getting asked "What are the trading power criteria - without that values are worthless".
> 
> Here is the answer per RCI Weeks.
> 
> This link is part of the overall RCI presentation regarding the new ability of members to see trade values. And it specifically says
> 
> "The trading power of your deposit isn’t changing! It has always been there and is used to determine the exchange options available to you, and it still will. The added flexibility is in that now you will SEE the trading power of your deposit, as well as the trading power of available exchange vacations. For a detailed refresher on how we’ve calculated your Deposit Trading Power for the last 35 years, click here."
> 
> So as I originally asked when this thread started - how does releasing the information hidden but applied for 35+ years hurt members?  To me it does not. It is a long overdue change that benefits members.


----------



## Carolinian

To me it comes down to an entity that has a history of skewed values on anything they publish.  The only exception is the award status rankings, the one place where they provide both the formula and the data to work the formula.  To have honest values, we need the same standards.  You may be willing to accept any ole' numbers, but some of us would really prefer honest numbers.





T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I keep coming back to that same page as well, John.
> 
> To me it simply boils down as follows.
> 
> I have a week in hand, and they tell me what my week is worth. I can go to the RCI store, where all of the prices are marked on everything, I can look at what i can get for my week, and decide whether or not I want to do business.
> 
> Or I can go to a RCI store where before I'm even allowed into the store I have to give them my week and they give me a credit slip that has some invisible coding on it.  Then as I wander around the aisles nothing is on display and no prices are marked. I have to ask what is available, and some clerk takes my credit slip, then comes back and says, based on what you gave us these are the things I can give you.  If I don't like anything they offer, I say no thanks and I get my credit slip back.  If none of the aisles have anything I like, I can leave.  But when I leave I have to leave my credit slip behind, where it will be stored until I come back.
> 
> ++++
> 
> After all of the hand waving and bubbling and frothing and prognosticating simmers down, I simply can't fathom how the first situation isn't vastly better than the second.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

Carolinian said:


> To me it comes down to an entity that has a history of skewed values on anything they publish.  The only exception is the award status rankings, the one place where they provide both the formula and the data to work the formula.  To have honest values, we need the same standards.  You may be willing to accept any ole' numbers, but some of us would really prefer honest numbers.



If I don't like their numbers, I just don't do business with them.  Just like Whole Foods; I don't like their prices so I don't shop there.

+++++

As you note RCI has always skewed the numbers.  But when they put the prices on everything you can see where they are skewing things.  And if they're skewing some resorts in favor of the developers, that means they are underpricing others.  

And just like in any store, with the prices published savvy shoppers will be able to easily identify and pick up the bargains that are out there.


----------



## timeos2

*Says who?*



Carolinian said:


> Right now, we know that much of the year for many of the resorts in Orlando, the trading power is the same as for a blue week most anywhere, as blue weeks easily trade in, due to the oversupply from Orlando being overbuilt.  We will see if that is still true when the numbers come out.  If it is not, then they have definitely moved the goalposts. (Of course there are some of the more demanded resorts like DVC that will always outpreform the rest of the Orlando market as well as prime weeks that will deserve high value).  I could substitute Canary Islands, Branson, or India for Orlando, as it is the same principle of oversupply from overbuilding.



Last time I looked RCI gave Orlando a RED, not BLUE, color code year round. That is not given to many areas because most don't have the demand to support it.  That is why they have other colors  

No matter how many times it gets repeated the fact remains that Orlando and a few other locales often deemed "overbuilt" have RED codes and lots of resorts because people want to go there again and again vs a visit or two.  More seasonal areas also have a core group of people that like a given area enough to go there often BUT they tend to want the top times (season) AND once they decide they like it enough will buy to use there (vs owning to trade).  Orlando attracts the "un-committed" (those that own to trade either weeks or points) over & over (ask Cindy) and there are plenty like her. There are plenty of owners who may say "Hey, we have an extra week/points - where can we go in October to May and enjoy? Beach? Nope.Too cold. Ski resort? Sold out.  Hey - we always enjoy Orlando and the kids like so lets go"

Very few will go to a cold location that is more or less shut down off season (most coastal or other summer destinations) but they will GLADLY go to Orlando, LV, Hawaii (if reasonable airfare can be found) and a few others. That's why Orlando is year round red (or pink some weeks if there was a pink) while the majority of areas have a limited RED time, plenty of BLUE and often even WHITE.  The demand just isn't there even if the supply is near zero it tends to sit unclaimed. Not so in Orlando even if supply is incredible. 

As for trade power - well it is what it is and has been for 35 years. In a couple weeks we'll all know what it is and I am anxious to see it.  And I will peek at those BLUE coastal weeks as well. I'll bet they don't have too much - especially compared to Orlando.  That those resorts want that hidden is no surprise but it doesn't change the value either way. It just gets exposed as it should have been all along. No "thumb on scale" required


----------



## Carolinian

The color codes are one of the things that RCI has long published and consequnetly have been bent for ages.

Orlando is not the only overbuilt area to be designated ''red'' all year.  The Canary Islands is another example.  Both are easy trades from about any blue week you may have because of the oversupply much of the year.  Now that does not mean there are some prime weeks that are hard to get into but they are the exception rather than the rule.  And there also also some resorts within those areas with higher demand that will be harder to get into than the average resort.

Those who have been on TUG a while remember the very helpful RCI employee who posted here for years as Bootleg, before he made a quick exit about the time the class action lawsuit started up.  Bootleg constantly told us that there were four places that RCI almost always inventory and you could almost always trade into - Orlando, Branson, Massanutten, and Williamsburg.  He also told us that the resort regularly with the biggest oversupply in the entire RCI system was an Orlando resort - Vacation Villages at Parkway.  Bootleg has, or at least had (I don't know if he still works there) access to RCI's computers, so he has the basis to make such statements, but you, John, do not.

Then, of course, we have the Availibility tables published in the European version of the RCI Directory (but curiously not in the US version), which also show places like Orlando and the Canaries having lots of excess inventory.

Savvy timesharers who look at availibility online regularly already have a good idea of what is equivalent in trade power, because they know what will trade for what.  They know any blue week anywhere will get quite a bit in Orlando.  No not Christmas, New Years Easter, or a chunk of the summer, but most anything else.  No, not DVC, but many other resorts.  Now if these numbers do not match up after the change, then RCI has moved the goalposts, put its thumb on the scales, pandered to developers, or whatever term you want to use.




timeos2 said:


> Last time I looked RCI gave Orlando a RED, not BLUE, color code year round. That is not given to many areas because most don't have the demand to support it.  That is why they have other colors
> 
> No matter how many times it gets repeated the fact remains that Orlando and a few other locales often deemed "overbuilt" have RED codes and lots of resorts because people want to go there again and again vs a visit or two.  More seasonal areas also have a core group of people that like a given area enough to go there often BUT they tend to want the top times (season) AND once they decide they like it enough will buy to use there (vs owning to trade).  Orlando attracts the "un-committed" (those that own to trade either weeks or points) over & over (ask Cindy) and there are plenty like her. There are plenty of owners who may say "Hey, we have an extra week/points - where can we go in October to May and enjoy? Beach? Nope.Too cold. Ski resort? Sold out.  Hey - we always enjoy Orlando and the kids like so lets go"
> 
> Very few will go to a cold location that is more or less shut down off season (most coastal or other summer destinations) but they will GLADLY go to Orlando, LV, Hawaii (if reasonable airfare can be found) and a few others. That's why Orlando is year round red (or pink some weeks if there was a pink) while the majority of areas have a limited RED time, plenty of BLUE and often even WHITE.  The demand just isn't there even if the supply is near zero it tends to sit unclaimed. Not so in Orlando even if supply is incredible.
> 
> As for trade power - well it is what it is and has been for 35 years. In a couple weeks we'll all know what it is and I am anxious to see it.  And I will peek at those BLUE coastal weeks as well. I'll bet they don't have too much - especially compared to Orlando.  That those resorts want that hidden is no surprise but it doesn't change the value either way. It just gets exposed as it should have been all along. No "thumb on scale" required


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> The color codes are one of the things that RCI has long published and consequnetly have been bent for ages.



And when were these resorts given the year-round RED designation?  Long before Cendant got involved!  The color codes are a relic of early RCI - the RCI that you long to go back to!

You keep saying RCI doesn't publish anything honest except the data regarding award status - yet you insist on relying on RCI Europe's published chart.  Again, are they honest or dishonest.  That chart is about availability - sounds like Supply to me, not supply vs demand.  RCI does in fact have chart on its website broken down by week, that I posted on one of the threads several weeks back.  I wish I had bookmarked it, but I didn't.

RCI has said the trading power isn't going to change when the new system goes live.  Perhaps anyone who thinks this isn't true should take a snapshot of their availability just before we go live, and just after, to compare. 

The more I look at that "enhancement" page, the more it sounds like RCI is in fact giving us what was asked for in the class-action lawsuit, only not just as a one-shot deal.  We wanted to know what our deposit was worth before we commit, sounds like we're getting that.  People often ask here if others see anything in the bank that they can't see with their current week.  Now that won't be necessary (unless they keep quality filters).  Those do in fact sound like real enhancements.

And as a nod to you, Carolinian, we will be able to see just what the difference is between those red Orlando weeks, and blue weeks elsewhere.  Perhaps what we will see is that Blue week owners who deposit early (as many have to do over the years) do in fact have enough trade power to get into Orlando on a regular basis, not because the weeks are worth as much a year out, but because there are so many Orlando owners that there are enough later deposits, with reduced value, for them to qualify.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Mel said:


> And as a nod to you, Carolinian, we will be able to see just what the difference is between those red Orlando weeks, and blue weeks elsewhere.  Perhaps what we will see is that Blue week owners who deposit early (as many have to do over the years) do in fact have enough trade power to get into Orlando on a regular basis, not because the weeks are worth as much a year out, but because there are so many Orlando owners that there are enough later deposits, with reduced value, for them to qualify.



Blue weeks pull 2 and 3 bedrooms in Orlando, including many Gold Crown.  The beauty of the 1-in-? RCI arrangements with Orlando resorts is that I can get 3 bedrooms at Gold Crowns with my blue weeks.  The inventory is plentiful.


----------



## MichaelColey

FWIW, I just deposited a 2BR Blue Week, 3 weeks before check-in.  (It sees about 65k units, unbelievably!)  It can see one 3BR Gold Crowns in Orlando (not including the next 45 days, when trading value doesn't matter).  During that same time (12/2/10 and on), the same deposit can see 252 3BR Gold Crowns total, including some in Hilton Head, Myrtle Beach, Smuggler's Notch, and Colorado.


----------



## Carolinian

So much for your shot in the dark on the European availibility charts.  Of course common sense SHOULD tell you that they are based on BOTH supply and demand, as either one alone would really not tell you about availibility.  The descriptions of the scale, however, leave nothing to doubt with desctriptions that include terms like ''very highly demanded'' and ''highly demanded''.  So again, your speculation is simply wrong.

I don't know what you have the class action lawsuit mixed up with, but it is clearly something else.  The class action was about stopping RCI's rental program.  RCI is certainly NOT giving us that.  If they were, I would agree that it would be an ''enhancement'' in the dictionary definition instead of in the Orwellian corporate-speak definition.

As to Orlando, what we will see is whether RCI has move the goalposts or not.  We know everything can get Orlando, or the Canaries, or Branson now.  Will they after the new RCI regime is imposed?  If they do move the goalposts, they will create an even bigger excess and the Orlando rental prices will have to come down even more.

Orlando once did deserve a red all year designation.  Marvin Beard, who founded of Outer Banks Resort Rentals, a timeshare specialist rental and resale brokerage back when timesharing was in its infancy. made a comment to me years ago on Orlando.  Marvin said he remembered a time that Orlando was referred to in timesharing as ''Mouse-front property'' and was a hot commodity.  Rolling his eyes, he continued that now anything would trade for Orlando.




Mel said:


> And when were these resorts given the year-round RED designation?  Long before Cendant got involved!  The color codes are a relic of early RCI - the RCI that you long to go back to!
> 
> You keep saying RCI doesn't publish anything honest except the data regarding award status - yet you insist on relying on RCI Europe's published chart.  Again, are they honest or dishonest.  That chart is about availability - sounds like Supply to me, not supply vs demand.  RCI does in fact have chart on its website broken down by week, that I posted on one of the threads several weeks back.  I wish I had bookmarked it, but I didn't.
> 
> RCI has said the trading power isn't going to change when the new system goes live.  Perhaps anyone who thinks this isn't true should take a snapshot of their availability just before we go live, and just after, to compare.
> 
> The more I look at that "enhancement" page, the more it sounds like RCI is in fact giving us what was asked for in the class-action lawsuit, only not just as a one-shot deal.  We wanted to know what our deposit was worth before we commit, sounds like we're getting that.  People often ask here if others see anything in the bank that they can't see with their current week.  Now that won't be necessary (unless they keep quality filters).  Those do in fact sound like real enhancements.
> 
> And as a nod to you, Carolinian, we will be able to see just what the difference is between those red Orlando weeks, and blue weeks elsewhere.  Perhaps what we will see is that Blue week owners who deposit early (as many have to do over the years) do in fact have enough trade power to get into Orlando on a regular basis, not because the weeks are worth as much a year out, but because there are so many Orlando owners that there are enough later deposits, with reduced value, for them to qualify.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> So much for your shot in the dark on the European availibility charts.  Of course common sense SHOULD tell you that they are based on BOTH supply and demand, as either one alone would really not tell you about availibility.  The descriptions of the scale, however, leave nothing to doubt with desctriptions that include terms like ''very highly demanded'' and ''highly demanded''.  So again, your speculation is simply wrong.


If common sense says so, then why should we all believe you about these charts that none of the US members have seen?  RCI publishes other charts which we have seen, and they paint an entirely different picture.

I know I posted this before, whether in this thread or another.  But maybe you should look at this link, and see what these chart suggest:

http://www.rci.com/docs/KnowledgeBase/Attachments/2009_SeasonGrid.pdf

DO you have a link for the rest of us to see your European charts?  Any explanation as to why these 2 sets of chart don't agree?  Any proof that your charts are more accurate - the ones I'm providing show demand/availability at each individual resort, on a weekly basis, even it they do categorize into only 3 levels (red, white, blue weeks).


> I don't know what you have the class action lawsuit mixed up with, but it is clearly something else.  The class action was about stopping RCI's rental program.  RCI is certainly NOT giving us that.  If they were, I would agree that it would be an ''enhancement'' in the dictionary definition instead of in the Orwellian corporate-speak definition.


I don't have the class action mixed up with anything.  The court agreed with the settlement, and seemed to indicate that what RCI was doing was acceptable.  The settlement included a one-time ability to know our trade value ahead of time; but now it looks like we well get that for all deposits.  That's not an enhancement?

How often do we see signtings requests, asking of anyone is seeing certain weeks in the exchange pool - now everyone will know what's available in the exchange pool, even if they don't have the trade power to secure it.  That's not an enhancement?


> As to Orlando, what we will see is whether RCI has move the goalposts or not.  We know everything can get Orlando, or the Canaries, or Branson now.  Will they after the new RCI regime is imposed?  If they do move the goalposts, they will create an even bigger excess and the Orlando rental prices will have to come down even more.


And how exactly is that in RCI's best interest?  If they're a big greedy corporation, only looking out for their own best interest, why would they set the bar so high, that they have to lower rental rates?  That sounds counterintuitive





> Orlando once did deserve a red all year designation.  Marvin Beard, who founded of Outer Banks Resort Rentals, a timeshare specialist rental and resale brokerage back when timesharing was in its infancy. made a comment to me years ago on Orlando.  Marvin said he remembered a time that Orlando was referred to in timesharing as ''Mouse-front property'' and was a hot commodity.  Rolling his eyes, he continued that now anything would trade for Orlando.


The facts aren't there to support that statement.  Perhaps a studio in a rundown resort can always be had, but maybe Cindy or Michael can tell us if their blue weeks can pull 2BR or better for every week over the course of the next year, at some of the better resorts (Tug ratings of 8.5 or better).


----------



## timeos2

*If you'll take a studio or otherwise no so great unit then maybe its true*



Mel said:


> The facts aren't there to support that statement.  Perhaps a studio in a rundown resort can always be had, but maybe Cindy or Michael can tell us if their blue weeks can pull 2BR or better for every week over the course of the next year, at some of the better resorts (Tug ratings of 8.5 or better).



Yeah, lots of luck with THAT. If you'll accept anything, and especially the monster mega resorts that seem determined to build themselves into worthlessness due to far too much inventory or the low end that really don't met Orlando standards (which are MUCH higher than most other areas) then yes, you can probably find something.  But if you want the better resorts or just a specific resort you'd better plan ahead. 

And, while it won't matter to most, IF you want a beach resort and have an Orlando resort 2 BR or higher to trade you'll most likely get it with no problem - except for about 8-10 weeks each year that do require serious planning to get.  30+ weeks a year you can get just about any beach location as there simply isn't much demand despite the relatively low supply. That's why the colors, as rough a rating as it represents, favor Orlando.  

As long as you own a quality resort the trade power for Orlando is as good or better than most. Soon we'll know exactly what it is as well as what every other area has.  Do most of you think that it is better that we haven't been able to get that information for 35 years?  Not me.


----------



## MichaelColey

Mel said:


> The facts aren't there to support that statement. Perhaps a studio in a rundown resort can always be had, but maybe Cindy or Michael can tell us if their blue weeks can pull 2BR or better for every week over the course of the next year, at some of the better resorts (Tug ratings of 8.5 or better).


I'm not going to dig through and find TUG ratings on everything, but here's what I see with my last minute Blue week deposit (that sees 65k units):

Restricting to United States (24k units), 2+BR (22k), Gold Crown (2k), Full Kitchen (2k), I see 2065 units in 115 resorts. (My better traders see over 5k.)

Looking week by week, my blue week can exchange into a unit somewhere in the US that fits that criteria ANY week between now and the end of next year, EXCEPT 6/17 and 6/24. Yes, even Easter, July 4th, Christmas, and New Years.

Looking through the 115 resorts, the ones with the most availability (20 or more units seen by my Blue week) are:

Escapes! to Bella Vista Village (#1927) 
Escapes! to Hot Springs Village (#1924) 
Escapes! to Stonebridge Village (#3402) 
Four Seasons Racquet & Country Club (#2751) 
Grandview at Las Vegas (#6923) 
Holiday Inn Club Vacations at Orange Lake Resort - West Village (#0670) 
Holiday Inn Club Vacations South Beach Resort (#6727) 
Lake Chelan Shores (#0441) 
Lakewood Resort (#5127) 
Meadow Lake Golf and Ski Resort (#1909) 
Mizner Place (#7559) 
Pend Oreille Shores Resort (#5123) 
Peterson's Waterfront Resort (#1217) 
Plantation Resort Villas (#6045) 
Sheraton Broadway Plantation (#4322) 
Silverleaf's Timber Creek Resort (#4864) 
Smugglers' Notch Resort (#0300) 
Sunrise Ridge Resort (#3876) 
Table Rock Landing on Holiday Island (#5153) 
The Rushes (#5082) 
The Summit at Massanutten (#3640) 
Vacation Village at Weston (#5773) 
Vacation Village in the Berkshires (#6057) 
Wapato Point (#0936) 
Whitebirch at Breezy Point Resort (#4983) 
Woodstone at Massanutten (#5711) 
Wyndham Branson (#3294) 
Wyndham Flagstaff (#0759) 
Wyndham Ocean Boulevard (#6777) 
Wyndham Resort at Fairfield Glade (#0072) 

Excluding units from the next 45 days (where trading power doesn't matter), I can still see at least one unit from each of these top notch resorts:

Bluegreen Wilderness Club at Big Cedar (#6311) - TUG Rating 9.37, ranked #15!
Hilton Grand Vacations Club on the Las Vegas Strip (#6300) - TUG Rating 8.8
Smugglers' Notch Resort (#0300) - TUG Rating 8.72
Hilton Grand Vacations Club on International Drive (#6309) - TUG Rating 9.11


----------



## Mel

MichaelColey said:


> I'm not going to dig through and find TUG ratings on everything, but here's what I see with my last minute Blue week deposit (that sees 65k units):
> 
> Restricting to United States (24k units), 2+BR (22k), Gold Crown (2k), Full Kitchen (2k), I see 2065 units in 115 resorts. (My better traders see over 5k.)
> 
> Looking week by week, my blue week can exchange into a unit somewhere in the US that fits that criteria ANY week between now and the end of next year, EXCEPT 6/17 and 6/24. Yes, even Easter, July 4th, Christmas, and New Years.


Sorry Michael, maybe I wasn't clear - Carolinian asserts that your blue week can exchange into Orlando during any week during the year.  What I'm curious about is how accurate (or not) his statement is.  I did notice a couple of Orlando resorts on your list.

So to restate the question - how many weeks of the year can your Blue Studio exchange into a 2BR or better unit at an Orlando resort with a rating of 8.5 or better (or use Gold Crown, since that's easy to filter).

I'm surprised you can't see more than 20 units at Vacation Village at Parkway, or and of the other resorts where Carolinian insists RCI has such a huge Oversupply.


----------



## MichaelColey

Okay, narrowing my search further to include only Orlando...  My last minute Blue week deposit only sees 101 units from 13 resorts.  The 13 resorts are:

Hilton Grand Vacations Club at SeaWorld International Center (#3517) 
Hilton Grand Vacations Club on International Drive (#6309) 
Holiday Inn Club Vacations at Orange Lake Resort - East Village (#8896) 
Holiday Inn Club Vacations at Orange Lake Resort - North Village (#8897) 
Holiday Inn Club Vacations at Orange Lake Resort - West Village (#0670) 
Magic Tree Resort (#8461) 
Orlando International Resort Club (#0552) 
Orlando's Sunshine Resort II (#5592) 
Silver Lake Resort-Silver Points (#6815) 
Silverleaf's Orlando Breeze Resort (#A432) 
Summer Bay Resort (#3175) 
The Gardens (#7549) 
Vacation Village at Parkway (#4940) 

I can only exchange into these Orlando 2BR units for about half of the next 52 weeks using this deposit.  I'm not sure that's a relevant observation, though.  Orlando always seems to have some good inventory still available 45 days out, so I have no doubt I could pick up something good virtually any week.  (Interestingly, Kauai has been the same way.)  The resorts I see showing up at (and within) the 45 day point have been amazing.

I can only see 18 units at Vacation Village at Parkway with this deposit.  I see considerably more with other deposits, but the trading value must be just a bit higher.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

MichaelColey said:


> Okay, narrowing my search further to include only Orlando...  My last minute Blue week deposit only sees 101 units from 13 resorts.



I think we need to know not just what resorts but what specific weeks.  Carolinian is saying that you can get any week of the year in Orlando with your blue week.


----------



## Carolinian

Your chart appears to be nothing but the red-white-blue seasons all collected into one place.  Nothing else!  

The charts in the European directory break it into four categories and seem to be a lot more up to date (they give the REAL picture in ''red all year'' Canary Islands for example).  They break it down by month.  The last directory had these grouped in one place in the front.  Now they scatter these through the directory in each section.

Prior to when I started posting about these charts, RCI North America would send its members a copy of the European version of the dirctory for a fee.  Not long after I started posting about them, Tuggers started mentioning that RCI had quit doing that.  You might try to see if they are providing these again, or otherwise try to get one through one of the European resorts.

As to the class action lawsuit, seeing trading power was NOT part of the relief sought in either original complaint.  Stopping RCI rentals (which you support) was the relief sought.  After the class action attorneys sold their clients down the river for a few trinkets, the ability to see trading power was merely one of those trinkets.  As you remember, this ''setttlement'' was unusual for a class action in that so many of the class members objected to it, and even had their own counsel.  Your assertion of seeing trading power as part of what the class action sought is a total distortion.





Mel said:


> If common sense says so, then why should we all believe you about these charts that none of the US members have seen?  RCI publishes other charts which we have seen, and they paint an entirely different picture.
> 
> I know I posted this before, whether in this thread or another.  But maybe you should look at this link, and see what these chart suggest:
> 
> http://www.rci.com/docs/KnowledgeBase/Attachments/2009_SeasonGrid.pdf
> 
> DO you have a link for the rest of us to see your European charts?  Any explanation as to why these 2 sets of chart don't agree?  Any proof that your charts are more accurate - the ones I'm providing show demand/availability at each individual resort, on a weekly basis, even it they do categorize into only 3 levels (red, white, blue weeks).
> I don't have the class action mixed up with anything.  The court agreed with the settlement, and seemed to indicate that what RCI was doing was acceptable.  The settlement included a one-time ability to know our trade value ahead of time; but now it looks like we well get that for all deposits.  That's not an enhancement?
> 
> How often do we see signtings requests, asking of anyone is seeing certain weeks in the exchange pool - now everyone will know what's available in the exchange pool, even if they don't have the trade power to secure it.  That's not an enhancement?
> And how exactly is that in RCI's best interest?  If they're a big greedy corporation, only looking out for their own best interest, why would they set the bar so high, that they have to lower rental rates?  That sounds counterintuitive
> The facts aren't there to support that statement.  Perhaps a studio in a rundown resort can always be had, but maybe Cindy or Michael can tell us if their blue weeks can pull 2BR or better for every week over the course of the next year, at some of the better resorts (Tug ratings of 8.5 or better).


----------



## Carolinian

NO, I have specifically said that there are better weeks in Orlando, such as Christmas, New Years, and a chunk of the summer.  They have their high season like everyone else.  I have repeatedly said that MUCH of they year was regularly availlible in Orlando at MANY of the resorts.  Please don't try to set up another straw man by saying that I am also including resorts like DVC.




T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I think we need to know not just what resorts but what specific weeks.  Carolinian is saying that you can get any week of the year in Orlando with your blue week.


----------



## Carolinian

Mel, in your defenses of RCI you are constantly putting up straw men so that you can try to knock them down.  This is just another one.  Go back and read my posts.  I have said that Orlando was availible as a trade for a blue week for MUCH of the year at MANY of the resorts.  Before long, you will be saying that I included DVC, too!

By trying to narrow this to just certain resorts in larger units, you are admitting my assertion.  Why don't you take Bootleg's word for it.  He had access to RCI's computers, which you do not.




Mel said:


> Sorry Michael, maybe I wasn't clear - Carolinian asserts that your blue week can exchange into Orlando during any week during the year.  What I'm curious about is how accurate (or not) his statement is.  I did notice a couple of Orlando resorts on your list.
> 
> So to restate the question - how many weeks of the year can your Blue Studio exchange into a 2BR or better unit at an Orlando resort with a rating of 8.5 or better (or use Gold Crown, since that's easy to filter).
> 
> I'm surprised you can't see more than 20 units at Vacation Village at Parkway, or and of the other resorts where Carolinian insists RCI has such a huge Oversupply.


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> He had access to RCI's computers, which you do not.


At RCI.com, I think we *all* have access to RCI's computers.


T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I think we need to know not just what resorts but what specific weeks. Carolinian is saying that you can get any week of the year in Orlando with your blue week.





Carolinian said:


> I have said that Orlando was availible as a trade for a blue week for MUCH of the year at MANY of the resorts.


Okay, let me look at Orlando a little closer.

Using my Blue week to look at 2BR units in Orlando for all of 2011, I can see 208 units at 27 resorts.  49 are Gold and 38 are Silver.

Looking at all 208 units, I can exchange in anytime in January, May, June, September, October, and November.  I can see some weeks in February, April, July, August and December.  I can't see anything in March.  If I counted right, I can only see inventory in 36 of 52 weeks.  Many of those weeks have very little selection.

If I restrict my search to just Gold or Silver resorts, I can only see the following weeks: 1/7, 1/14, 1/21, 1/28, 2/4, 5/13, 6/10, 9/16, 9/23, and 12/9.  That's only 10 of 52 weeks.  (All of those have Gold resorts available, except 2/4.)

Now if I look at my BEST trader (2BR Red Week, Gold Crown, prime week, tiger cub) instead and look just for Gold Crown resorts, here are the weeks where I don't see any 2BR inventory: 1/1, 2/18, 3/11, 11/18, 12/23, and 12/30.  I can see 46 of 52 weeks (although a few of those -- particularly in April and June -- are very limited).

I think this shows that the assertation that Orlando is available as a trade for a Blue week for much of the year is clearly wrong.  It's available, but not with a Blue week.


----------



## e.bram

But who wants to go to Orlando?


----------



## MichaelColey

Only about 50 million people every year.


----------



## Carolinian

If I remember correctly, though, your blue week that you are using is one that was deposited last minute.  While it has been years since I owned a blue week, I never did deposit one last minute.  I did however once deposit a summer holiday red week last minute when a rental fell through, and it traded like a blue week deposited a year or so out.  A blue week deposited at the last minute is thus almost certainly much less of a trader than even the same week deposited at an earlier time, and so is not a very good indicator.  




MichaelColey said:


> At RCI.com, I think we *all* have access to RCI's computers.
> 
> Okay, let me look at Orlando a little closer.
> 
> Using my Blue week to look at 2BR units in Orlando for all of 2011, I can see 208 units at 27 resorts.  49 are Gold and 38 are Silver.
> 
> Looking at all 208 units, I can exchange in anytime in January, May, June, September, October, and November.  I can see some weeks in February, April, July, August and December.  I can't see anything in March.  If I counted right, I can only see inventory in 36 of 52 weeks.  Many of those weeks have very little selection.
> 
> If I restrict my search to just Gold or Silver resorts, I can only see the following weeks: 1/7, 1/14, 1/21, 1/28, 2/4, 5/13, 6/10, 9/16, 9/23, and 12/9.  That's only 10 of 52 weeks.  (All of those have Gold resorts available, except 2/4.)
> 
> Now if I look at my BEST trader (2BR Red Week, Gold Crown, prime week, tiger cub) instead and look just for Gold Crown resorts, here are the weeks where I don't see any 2BR inventory: 1/1, 2/18, 3/11, 11/18, 12/23, and 12/30.  I can see 46 of 52 weeks (although a few of those -- particularly in April and June -- are very limited).
> 
> I think this shows that the assertation that Orlando is available as a trade for a Blue week for much of the year is clearly wrong.  It's available, but not with a Blue week.


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> If I remember correctly, though, your blue week that you are using is one that was deposited last minute. ... A blue week deposited at the last minute is thus almost certainly much less of a trader than even the same week deposited at an earlier time, and so is not a very good indicator.


While it was deposited only three weeks before check-in, it still sees 65k units, which is over 40% of RCI's inventory.  (I haven't heard of anyone who can see more than 150k units, and 65/150 is 43%.)

I think the observations from this deposit perfectly prove the point, as those units it can't see would have a "middle of the road" or higher trading value.

Another month or so, and I think things will be much more clear.


----------



## Bourne

A minit tidbit...

FWIV, word on the street is that the there are no plans on changing the number of trading bands in the near future. The DVC upgrade burned a sizeable hole in the IT budget...

The Nov change is more of a revenue generator. it potentially allows more trades to be confirmed even if the number of deposits/members do not change. Which IMHO, is a good idea. 

Again, this is second hand info...


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


> While it was deposited only three weeks before check-in, it still sees 65k units, which is over 40% of RCI's inventory.  (I haven't heard of anyone who can see more than 150k units, and 65/150 is 43%.)
> 
> I think the observations from this deposit perfectly prove the point, as those units it can't see would have a "middle of the road" or higher trading value.
> 
> Another month or so, and I think things will be much more clear.



. . . when they have moved the goalposts!


----------



## Carolinian

Bourne said:


> A minit tidbit...
> 
> FWIV, word on the street is that the there are no plans on changing the number of trading bands in the near future. The DVC upgrade burned a sizeable hole in the IT budget...
> 
> The Nov change is more of a revenue generator. it potentially allows more trades to be confirmed even if the number of deposits/members do not change. Which IMHO, is a good idea.
> 
> Again, this is second hand info...



Oh, but your number of members and deposits WILL change, and not for the positive.  Crusin's post was right on the mark on that subject.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> Your chart appears to be nothing but the red-white-blue seasons all collected into one place.  Nothing else!
> 
> The charts in the European directory break it into four categories and seem to be a lot more up to date (they give the REAL picture in ''red all year'' Canary Islands for example).  They break it down by month.  The last directory had these grouped in one place in the front.  Now they scatter these through the directory in each section.


So your charts break things into 4 categories, and applies to resort areas, on a monthly basis.  My charts only have 3 categories, but show demand on a weekly basis for every resort.  Which of these charts is more detailed?

But, I know, these charts don't bolster your opinion, so they should be disregarded.


> As to the class action lawsuit, seeing trading power was NOT part of the relief sought in either original complaint.  Stopping RCI rentals (which you support) was the relief sought.  After the class action attorneys sold their clients down the river for a few trinkets, the ability to see trading power was merely one of those trinkets.  As you remember, this ''setttlement'' was unusual for a class action in that so many of the class members objected to it, and even had their own counsel.  Your assertion of seeing trading power as part of what the class action sought is a total distortion.


No, it wasn't the main purpose of the class action, however, it was part of the settlement - if it was meaninless, then why accept the settlement.  Somebody thought being able to see the value of your week before you deposit might be useful.  What many people objected to was the one-time offer made by RCI.  Now it won't be one time only, we'll know the value of our deposits when we make them.


Carolinian said:


> Mel, in your defenses of RCI you are constantly putting up straw men so that you can try to knock them down.  This is just another one.  Go back and read my posts.  I have said that Orlando was availible as a trade for a blue week for MUCH of the year at MANY of the resorts.  Before long, you will be saying that I included DVC, too!
> 
> By trying to narrow this to just certain resorts in larger units, you are admitting my assertion.  Why don't you take Bootleg's word for it.  He had access to RCI's computers, which you do not.


No, you don't include DVC, but you obviously also don't include many other Orlando resorts.  Does much of the time mean 40% of the year?  Many resorts doesn't mean anything either - there are many resorts in Orlando that most people don't want to visit.  Who cares if that blue week can exchange into a motel conversion that doesn't have enough beds for my family?


Carolinian said:


> If I remember correctly, though, your blue week that you are using is one that was deposited last minute.  While it has been years since I owned a blue week, I never did deposit one last minute.  I did however once deposit a summer holiday red week last minute when a rental fell through, and it traded like a blue week deposited a year or so out.  A blue week deposited at the last minute is thus almost certainly much less of a trader than even the same week deposited at an earlier time, and so is not a very good indicator.





MichaelColey said:


> FWIW, I just deposited a 2BR Blue Week, 3 weeks before check-in.  (It sees about 65k units, unbelievably!)  It can see one 3BR Gold Crowns in Orlando (not including the next 45 days, when trading value doesn't matter).  During that same time (12/2/10 and on), the same deposit can see 252 3BR Gold Crowns total, including some in Hilton Head, Myrtle Beach, Smuggler's Notch, and Colorado.


Michael states his blue week sees 65,000 units, so it has fairly decent exchange value.  But it doesn't confirm your assertions, so once again, we should disregard it.


Carolinian said:


> So much for your shot in the dark on the European availibility charts.  Of course common sense SHOULD tell you that they are based on BOTH supply and demand, as either one alone would really not tell you about availibility.  The descriptions of the scale, however, leave nothing to doubt with desctriptions that include terms like ''very highly demanded'' and ''highly demanded''.  So again, your speculation is simply wrong.


But again, how do you explain the difference between your charts and mine.   Again, availability doesn't mean everything.The fact that the information on these two sets of charts seem to contradict each other seems to indicate that they are not in fact showing the same information.  As I have already suggested before, perhaps your charts are based on demand among RCI Europe members, which would be very different than demand from US members, RCI members worldwide.


> As to Orlando, what we will see is whether RCI has move the goalposts or not.  We know everything can get Orlando, or the Canaries, or Branson now.  Will they after the new RCI regime is imposed?  If they do move the goalposts, they will create an even bigger excess and the Orlando rental prices will have to come down even more.


Again, this makes no sense from RCI's perspective.  They are in this to make money.  Why would they do something to drive down the rental prices, and hurt their own bottom line?

You claim RCI is going to lose many members when they see the value of their weeks.  But if they are not in fact changing the underlying formula, and everybody is still able to exchange for everything the do right now, it might in fact drive business up.  

You look at the deposit you already have in the bank, and see what you can get as an exchange, which has not changed.  Do you leave RCI because you discover you can't exchange into the unit you couldn't exchange into before?  Do you get upset because someone else's unit is worth more than your own?  Do you quit because you discover that the last 20 exchanges you made, which you thought were even exchanges, we in fact trades down, and RCI has been ripping you off for the past 10 years?  Or do you stick around because now when you make those same trades, you will get a bit of change, and that change will add up and get you an extra week every once in a while?


----------



## Keep Traveling

Blue Weeks,

I deposit blue weeks here and there.  I have a currently 3 Bedroom Blue Week that has been deposited that see around 130k units.  When DVCs come up I can see most of the 2 Bedrooms with it, but not the Beach Club is the only one I can't normally see.

So the problem sometimes grouping something in lumps is each resort trades differently. This blue week was made about 9 months out and has been very good at seeing a good deal of the stuff out there.  

KT


----------



## Carolinian

Mel, come on, you participated in the thread on the RCI lawsuit settlement.  You should be aware that the ''settlement'' was really nothing but a sell-out by the class action lawyers who only cared about one thing - their huge fee. You should also know that the vast majority of those individuals members who responded to the court strenously objected to the sell-out.  Have you forgotten so soon, or is it just convenient to your argument?  Go back and read the lengthly thread on the ''settlement'' if you need a refresher.  What people objected to had nothing to do with the fact that the meaningless trinkets offered were a one time thing.  What people objected to was that the lawsuit did nothing to deal with the one real issue in the case - RCI's wrongful rental of exchange deposits to the general public.  But then, your focus may have been somewhere else since you support RCI's rentals of that inventory.

AGAIN, your ''charts'' are NOTHING but the RCI color codes collected in one place.  They are nothing new.  Indeed most of those color codes were established decades ago and for the most part not changed since.  Have you just discovered the color codes or is this a red herring?

The availibility tables are more up to date.  For example, they show the real story based on what actually comes into the system on the seasons of the ''red all year'' areas under the color codes.

As to your theory of RCI picking up business, please refer to Cruisin's posts.  That is the reality of what RCI will face.

When it comes to availibility in the charts in the European version of the directory, if someone is occupying the unit, then it is not availible to trade into.  It is totally irrelevent whether the person occupying it is from the US, Europe, or the moon.  Charts based on demand from only one area whould be useless.  Common sense should tell you that the only thing useful to members is the totality of supply and the totality of demand.  It would not even be worth the time to compile what you are suggesting.

The difference between the availibility tables and the color codes (or ''your charts'' as you call them) is time of compilation.  The color codes are simply ancient history.

As to Michael's blue week, it is a last minute deposit.  Last minute deposits are whacked on trading power.  Check out the post from a Tugger who has a blue week deposit that is NOT a last minute deposit.  




Mel said:


> So your charts break things into 4 categories, and applies to resort areas, on a monthly basis.  My charts only have 3 categories, but show demand on a weekly basis for every resort.  Which of these charts is more detailed?
> 
> But, I know, these charts don't bolster your opinion, so they should be disregarded.
> 
> No, it wasn't the main purpose of the class action, however, it was part of the settlement - if it was meaninless, then why accept the settlement.  Somebody thought being able to see the value of your week before you deposit might be useful.  What many people objected to was the one-time offer made by RCI.  Now it won't be one time only, we'll know the value of our deposits when we make them.
> No, you don't include DVC, but you obviously also don't include many other Orlando resorts.  Does much of the time mean 40% of the year?  Many resorts doesn't mean anything either - there are many resorts in Orlando that most people don't want to visit.  Who cares if that blue week can exchange into a motel conversion that doesn't have enough beds for my family?
> 
> 
> 
> Michael states his blue week sees 65,000 units, so it has fairly decent exchange value.  But it doesn't confirm your assertions, so once again, we should disregard it.
> But again, how do you explain the difference between your charts and mine.   Again, availability doesn't mean everything.The fact that the information on these two sets of charts seem to contradict each other seems to indicate that they are not in fact showing the same information.  As I have already suggested before, perhaps your charts are based on demand among RCI Europe members, which would be very different than demand from US members, RCI members worldwide.
> 
> Again, this makes no sense from RCI's perspective.  They are in this to make money.  Why would they do something to drive down the rental prices, and hurt their own bottom line?
> 
> You claim RCI is going to lose many members when they see the value of their weeks.  But if they are not in fact changing the underlying formula, and everybody is still able to exchange for everything the do right now, it might in fact drive business up.
> 
> You look at the deposit you already have in the bank, and see what you can get as an exchange, which has not changed.  Do you leave RCI because you discover you can't exchange into the unit you couldn't exchange into before?  Do you get upset because someone else's unit is worth more than your own?  Do you quit because you discover that the last 20 exchanges you made, which you thought were even exchanges, we in fact trades down, and RCI has been ripping you off for the past 10 years?  Or do you stick around because now when you make those same trades, you will get a bit of change, and that change will add up and get you an extra week every once in a while?


----------



## rickandcindy23

Keep Traveling said:


> Blue Weeks,
> 
> I deposit blue weeks here and there.  I have a currently 3 Bedroom Blue Week that has been deposited that see around 130k units.  When DVCs come up I can see most of the 2 Bedrooms with it, but not the Beach Club is the only one I can't normally see.
> 
> So the problem sometimes grouping something in lumps is each resort trades differently. This blue week was made about 9 months out and has been very good at seeing a good deal of the stuff out there.
> 
> KT



What blue week sees Disney 2 bedrooms?  What resort and week is that?  I see 3 bedrooms at the Hiltons, Orange Lake and Summer Bay, all with a blue Colorado week (2 bed), and only because of the 1-in-3 and 4 rules.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> What people objected to was that the lawsuit did nothing to deal with the one real issue in the case - RCI's wrongful rental of exchange deposits to the general public.  But then, your focus may have been somewhere else since you support RCI's rentals of that inventory.


If that was all the class action was about, then why was there even a settlement?  It was about what members perceived as being the result of the rentals, and they wanted to see an improvement or be compensated for the changes to the exchange system.

Why is it that despite prodding by many, none of the Attorneys General have filed suit against RCI.  Is it perhaps because they are not legally doing anything wrong?  Is it perhaps because RCI has an annual audit of what goes into and out of the exchange pool, and there is no proof that RCI is cooking the books?

Look at why RCI and II are successful.  They provide exchanges for the vast majority of their members.  For those who are not successful getting an exchange, the biggest complaint has been not knowing what their week is worth, and therefore not knowing what to expect as a fair exchange.

Whether this is what the lawsuit was about or not is the red herring.  The only thing this has to do with the settlement is that it is providing MORE than what was offered in the settlement.  RCI doesn't have to do this, but has chosen to do so.


> AGAIN, your ''charts'' are NOTHING but the RCI color codes collected in one place.  They are nothing new.  Indeed most of those color codes were established decades ago and for the most part not changed since.  Have you just discovered the color codes or is this a red herring?
> 
> The availibility tables are more up to date.  For example, they show the real story based on what actually comes into the system on the seasons of the ''red all year'' areas under the color codes.[\quote]
> Show us all the proof that your charts are more accurate, and more up to date.  Did you even look at the charts I provided - week by week, resort by resort data, not categorized by area.  There are times in other areas where I don't agree with the red designation, but that doesn't change the fact that RCI believes the demand at those times deserve the red designation.
> 
> If you want to expand the categories to differentiate between Orlando in Peak times and slow times, shouldn't we also differentiate the Blue weeks too?  There's a pretty big difference between the best and worst of them too.  You claim this new system is worthless without the formula to back it up - yet you stick by your European charts which also don't show any formula.  What we're about to get will be even more detailed than your charts, yet you insist the new system will be worse than what we have.  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> As to your theory of RCI picking up business, please refer to Cruisin's posts.  That is the reality of what RCI will face.
> [\quote]People are upset with the information (or lack thereof) they have right now.  When RCI shuts down to implement this new system, I bet it will already be mostly in place - they need to shut down to implement the interface.  We already access the mainframe running the exchange program through a web interface, in pseudo-real time.  That interface will have to be adjusted, particularly with regard to making deposits.  Whatever changes are being made to trade power were probably the result of the drop in trade power some people saw a while back.  Those types of changes don't require a change to the interface, so why would RCI wait to make them?
> 
> Do you honstly believe publishing the trade power values is going to make people give up on timeshare?  Those who might are already heading in that direction.  If anything, I think more information will improve that situation.
> 
> Think of the general population of those who exchange their weeks.  What percentage of them pays their maintenance fees early in order to deposit their week a full year out?  Consider that blue week owner who pays in January and deposits their March week 3 months out, might discover that paying 6 months earlier will almost double the trade power.  Consider he might now know what he would be able to get as an exchange by doing so, that he couldn't get before.  Assuming her changes that maintenance fee to his credit card, and pays an extra 15% in finance charges (6 months, with a high rate card), he sees a dramatic improvement.
> 
> On the one hand you keep insisting that RCI has caused blue weeks to have little value, yet on the other hand you keep saying how those same blue weeks have better trade power than some red weeks.  If that is the case, who should be upset?  The blue week owners, or those red week owners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to availibility in the charts in the European version of the directory, if someone is occupying the unit, then it is not availible to trade into.  It is totally irrelevent whether the person occupying it is from the US, Europe, or the moon.  Charts based on demand from only one area whould be useless.  Common sense should tell you that the only thing useful to members is the totality of supply and the totality of demand.  It would not even be worth the time to compile what you are suggesting.
> 
> The difference between the availibility tables and the color codes (or ''your charts'' as you call them) is time of compilation.  The color codes are simply ancient history.
> 
> As to Michael's blue week, it is a last minute deposit.  Last minute deposits are whacked on trading power.  Check out the post from a Tugger who has a blue week deposit that is NOT a last minute deposit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Carolinian

timeos2 said:


> the monster mega resorts that seem determined to build themselves into worthlessness due to far too much inventory
> 
> .



Well, it seems that maybe you CAN understand the concept of why overbuilding causes excess supply and therefore lower trade value, after all!  And you even admit that it occurs in Orlando.


----------



## Carolinian

Mel, you participated in the lengthy thread on the lawsuit, as one of the RCI defenders.  Have you totally forgotten what was in that thread.

There was a ''settlement'' which was really more of a sellout, because the slimy class action lawyers saw an opportunity to make a boatload of money for themselves by selling their clients down the river with an agreement to put a bandaid on a cancer, not address any of the issues in the lawsuit, and take a few stupid trinkets that were absolutely unacceptable to most class members that paid attention.  That is why many individual class members got involved to try to stop the sellout / settlement and move forward with the case.  The settlement is not anything the members wanted.  It served the purposes of RCI and the purposes of the class action attorneys and nobody else.  It is not a standard to compare anything against.  What was ''offered in the settlement'' had not a darn thing to do with what was sought in the lawsuit.

The only prodding I am aware of involving state AG's was with Missouri and I don't know how many responded to prod him.  Having worked in state government in a rather high position, I can tell you that AG's have more opportunities to file class actions than staff to file them.  They are therefore selective.  You have to get to the right person to get them to understand the issue.  Volume alone sometimes works but more often not.  I have not even approached my state AG because the AG is political and those around him who have decision making power on things like this are political appointees.  Having served in state government as a political appointee of the opposite party, the chances that they would listen to me on anything are slim and none.  In two years, based on a recent scandal at the SBI, I suspect my party will have a good chance to take the AG position.  Then it will be a whole different ballgame.

As to proof that RCI is looting the exchange system of good inventory for rentals, Anon on TimeshareTalk and Bootleg here have both had a look at RCI's computers, since they work(ed) there and told us what RCI was doing.  Another RCI employee who posted at TimeshareTalk actually put up screen shots from RCI computers showing RCI diverting prime spacebank deposits to rentals.

The biggest complaint about RCI these days is NOT anything to do with knowing what a week is worth.  It is that the quality of what is offered for exchange has dramatically gone down from what it used to be.  That started happening after RCI started diverting inventory to rentals.

The charts in the European directory are simply the best thing RCI has provided yet.  There is not the need for formulas there, as these are not precise number that have absolute control over what you can trade for.  They are just informational about the system.  Controlling numbers DO need the date to back them up.  Charts that are merely informational do NOT.

I did indeed look at your ''charts'' enough to identify exactly what they were, and that is the RCI seasonal color codes all collected in one place.  That is absolutely nothing new, and is indeed only ancient history.

What will make people give up timesharing, and has already been making people give up timesharing is RCI moving the goalposts.  What Cruisin saw with his resort will do that.  Fortunately that resort is dual affiliated, so instead of giving up timesharing, they will simply have a flight to II.  Depleting the better inventory to divert it to rentals is one aspect of moving the goalposts that has hurt timesharing.  Degrading the 45 day window is another that has already happened.  This will be the third wave.





Mel said:


> If that was all the class action was about, then why was there even a settlement?  It was about what members perceived as being the result of the rentals, and they wanted to see an improvement or be compensated for the changes to the exchange system.
> 
> Why is it that despite prodding by many, none of the Attorneys General have filed suit against RCI.  Is it perhaps because they are not legally doing anything wrong?  Is it perhaps because RCI has an annual audit of what goes into and out of the exchange pool, and there is no proof that RCI is cooking the books?
> 
> Look at why RCI and II are successful.  They provide exchanges for the vast majority of their members.  For those who are not successful getting an exchange, the biggest complaint has been not knowing what their week is worth, and therefore not knowing what to expect as a fair exchange.
> 
> Whether this is what the lawsuit was about or not is the red herring.  The only thing this has to do with the settlement is that it is providing MORE than what was offered in the settlement.  RCI doesn't have to do this, but has chosen to do so.
> AGAIN, your ''charts'' are NOTHING but the RCI color codes collected in one place.  They are nothing new.  Indeed most of those color codes were established decades ago and for the most part not changed since.  Have you just discovered the color codes or is this a red herring?
> 
> The availibility tables are more up to date.  For example, they show the real story based on what actually comes into the system on the seasons of the ''red all year'' areas under the color codes.
> Show us all the proof that your charts are more accurate, and more up to date.  Did you even look at the charts I provided - week by week, resort by resort data, not categorized by area.  There are times in other areas where I don't agree with the red designation, but that doesn't change the fact that RCI believes the demand at those times deserve the red designation.
> 
> If you want to expand the categories to differentiate between Orlando in Peak times and slow times, shouldn't we also differentiate the Blue weeks too?  There's a pretty big difference between the best and worst of them too.  You claim this new system is worthless without the formula to back it up - yet you stick by your European charts which also don't show any formula.  What we're about to get will be even more detailed than your charts, yet you insist the new system will be worse than what we have.  Why is that?
> As to your theory of RCI picking up business, please refer to Cruisin's posts.  That is the reality of what RCI will face.
> People are upset with the information (or lack thereof) they have right now.  When RCI shuts down to implement this new system, I bet it will already be mostly in place - they need to shut down to implement the interface.  We already access the mainframe running the exchange program through a web interface, in pseudo-real time.  That interface will have to be adjusted, particularly with regard to making deposits.  Whatever changes are being made to trade power were probably the result of the drop in trade power some people saw a while back.  Those types of changes don't require a change to the interface, so why would RCI wait to make them?
> 
> Do you honstly believe publishing the trade power values is going to make people give up on timeshare?  Those who might are already heading in that direction.  If anything, I think more information will improve that situation.
> 
> Think of the general population of those who exchange their weeks.  What percentage of them pays their maintenance fees early in order to deposit their week a full year out?  Consider that blue week owner who pays in January and deposits their March week 3 months out, might discover that paying 6 months earlier will almost double the trade power.  Consider he might now know what he would be able to get as an exchange by doing so, that he couldn't get before.  Assuming her changes that maintenance fee to his credit card, and pays an extra 15% in finance charges (6 months, with a high rate card), he sees a dramatic improvement.
> 
> On the one hand you keep insisting that RCI has caused blue weeks to have little value, yet on the other hand you keep saying how those same blue weeks have better trade power than some red weeks.  If that is the case, who should be upset?  The blue week owners, or those red week owners?


----------



## Tommart

*Impact of the New RCI Transparent System*

The more I think about it, this new system should increase the demand for prime weeks and resorts.  

Right now, my one bedroom Woodstone unit sees 104K of weeks.  Unfortunately, none are in Maui where we want to go.

So, up until now, Maui was out of reach as an exchange.

So I believe that some people (like me) who currently do not have the option to exchange will combine weeks to get what we want.  I have four annual weeks that I can play with.  I would happily give up all four for two weeks in Maui.

This could increase the demand for prime weeks and potentially increase the surplus of non-prime weeks.  As a result, the point spread between prime and non-prime may increase over time.


----------



## cruisin

Tommart said:


> The more I think about it, this new system should increase the demand for prime weeks and resorts.
> 
> Right now, my one bedroom Woodstone unit sees 104K of weeks.  Unfortunately, none are in Maui where we want to go.
> 
> So, up until now, Maui was out of reach as an exchange.
> 
> So I believe that some people (like me) who currently do not have the option to exchange will combine weeks to get what we want.  I have four annual weeks that I can play with.  I would happily give up all four for two weeks in Maui.
> 
> This could increase the demand for prime weeks and potentially increase the surplus of non-prime weeks.  As a result, the point spread between prime and non-prime may increase over time.



I agree, you would think this would happen, but who knows anymore, If people can pay the cash for the difference or combine to get a prime unit, the demand will be Nuclear hot for prime weeks.


----------



## bnoble

We've had the "prime week" discussion already---and it cuts both ways.  Just as some people will "reach up" by combining, there may well be just as many who might prefer change back.  For example, the couple who sees both the 1BR and 2BR now for their exchange might always take the 2BR "just in case someone comes".  But, if that costs more "credits", they might prefer the 1BR instead.  Likewise for a high-demand and moderate-demand resort in the same area; they may decide that saving the credits for something else is worth doing.  And so on.


----------



## Mel

bnoble said:


> We've had the "prime week" discussion already---and it cuts both ways.  Just as some people will "reach up" by combining, there may well be just as many who might prefer change back.  For example, the couple who sees both the 1BR and 2BR now for their exchange might always take the 2BR "just in case someone comes".  But, if that costs more "credits", they might prefer the 1BR instead.  Likewise for a high-demand and moderate-demand resort in the same area; they may decide that saving the credits for something else is worth doing.  And so on.



That's exactly what we want!  Right now, in a straight one to one system, people will almost always take the best of what is available.  If you're looking for that week in Maui, and your unit will pull any size unit up to a 3BR (don't know if there are any there, but assuming there are), I would expect most people will take the 3BR.  It doesn't cost any more, and maybe friends might want to join them.  

With this new system, maybe they will take the 1BR, because it's supposed to be a romantic trip for two, or a 2BR, figuring one other couple might join them.  Why pay the extra points for that 3BR unless you know you're going to want it.

Then with the remaining points, which will in effect be a free extra exchange (paying the exchange fee of course), they might take a low demand week they wouldn't otherwise consider (or even something last minute), precisely because they were never willing to waste a good week.

For all those exchanges we're making right now that might be a trade down, we get the change.  Or maybe as Tommart said, he wants 2 weeks in Maui, in exchange for his 4 other weeks.  He gets those 2 weeks, and has enough change for a last minute trade somewhere else (or perhaps a last minute week to add on, if he can afford to change his flights).


----------



## timeos2

*Key items that will build interest in the new way of doing things in weeks*



Tommart said:


> So, up until now, Maui was out of reach as an exchange.
> 
> So I believe that some people (like me) who currently do not have the option to exchange will combine weeks to get what we want.  I have four annual weeks that I can play with.  I would happily give up all four for two weeks in Maui.
> .



The ability to combine weeks to get the trade desired as well as the idea of "change back" for lesser exchanges are both big.  I think owners (such as you) will find those great features and use them alot.


----------



## MichaelColey

bnoble said:


> We've had the "prime week" discussion already---and it cuts both ways. Just as some people will "reach up" by combining, there may well be just as many who might prefer change back. For example, the couple who sees both the 1BR and 2BR now for their exchange might always take the 2BR "just in case someone comes".


The more I think about it, the more I continue to lean back to the "prime week will be in higher demand" side. There are far more low value weeks than prime ones. If 5% of people trade up and 5% of people trade down, it'll have a far bigger impact on the top 10% of weeks than it does on bottom 50%.

Of course when/if prime weeks become harder to get (because they're now in the reach of far more people), some will say that RCI moved the goalposts and it's because of rentals.


----------



## "Roger"

Its not like this is the first time anyone has ever tried to impliment a points based system.  Fairfield (now Wyndham), Worldmark, Disney, Hyatt, Hilton have been using them for years.

From my own experience, my wife and I are usually taking pink weeks, one bedrooms, etc. in order to use the extra points for either an extra trip or a trade up.  Most of the trade ups have been minimal up-trades in terms of points, but it is what has allowed us to have some very memorable trips to England and Wales.  

The one big trade up was a truly prime unit in England.  That trade up allowed us to take my wife's aunt, a nun who at the time was in her mid-seventies, on the trip of her lifetime.  I serioiusly doubt that the same unit would have been available to us as a one for one trade in the Weeks system. How much was being able to do that (blow our wad) worth to us?  Looking back (particularly since the aunt in question now is fairly deeply into Alzheimer's), it is much like the Master Card commercial - priceless.

Looking at it from the other side, whomever owned the particular English timeshare that we traded into on this one occassion had very few trade options if they wanted to trade for something  of equal value.  (There are very units that have that much worth.)  I don't begrudge them at all for now being able to trade where they want  without having to give up some of the value of what they own.  When they trade down (which is almost any trade), they are given leftover points to use elsewhere.

People getting the fair worth of their timeshares, being offered incentives to take the marginal weeks in the Weeks system or one bedrooms instead of two, people knowing the actual trade value of what they are buying instead of having to rely on what the timeshare saleman tells them, people seeing the trade value before they submit their weeks to an exchange company, exchange companies not being able to systematically offer people less than the worth of their units and then skim off the top for rentals (one of the prime  features of the Weeks system), ... nothing but "trinkets".  Viva la trinkets.

Please note: I am in Points.  I have nothing  to gain from this changeover.  In fact, it might undermine the value of my having paid to join the points program since its key features will now be available to everyone.  Still, I am happy to see timesharing move  in a positive direction.  My only wish is that everyone will start militating that every exchange company do this.  That will help create a better free market place where people can see what different companies have to offer and then take the best deal.  That is how supply and demand should really work.


----------



## Carolinian

As I recall, what you actually have are two weeks that are lock-offs, so that would really be 2 for 2, and in terms of m/f's it would also be 2 for 2.  Yes, people in that situation will very likely recombine their lockoffs.  However, those with 4 seperate m/f's for 4 seperate weeks, well that is a different kettle of fish altogether.

If I wanted to go anywhere in Hawaii, I would be looking to trade through HTSE, not RCI, anyway.




Tommart said:


> The more I think about it, this new system should increase the demand for prime weeks and resorts.
> 
> Right now, my one bedroom Woodstone unit sees 104K of weeks.  Unfortunately, none are in Maui where we want to go.
> 
> So, up until now, Maui was out of reach as an exchange.
> 
> So I believe that some people (like me) who currently do not have the option to exchange will combine weeks to get what we want.  I have four annual weeks that I can play with.  I would happily give up all four for two weeks in Maui.
> 
> This could increase the demand for prime weeks and potentially increase the surplus of non-prime weeks.  As a result, the point spread between prime and non-prime may increase over time.


----------



## Carolinian

bnoble said:


> We've had the "prime week" discussion already---and it cuts both ways.  Just as some people will "reach up" by combining, there may well be just as many who might prefer change back.  For example, the couple who sees both the 1BR and 2BR now for their exchange might always take the 2BR "just in case someone comes".  But, if that costs more "credits", they might prefer the 1BR instead.  Likewise for a high-demand and moderate-demand resort in the same area; they may decide that saving the credits for something else is worth doing.  And so on.



There will also be those who do not want to be tangled up with ''change back'' because they do not want to be bound to RCI for a future transaction.  They may want to use their week the following year, rent it, or use a different exchange company.  That is one of the reasons I have always prefered clean one for one trades.  And most people who buy high season to trade is because that is the type of week they want to trade into.

I think we will likely see fewer people splitting their lock-offs, so that will add pressure on the better tier of weeks.  Once the ability to buy extra points from RCI kicks in, then the trade up problem will become severe, and there will be a flight of prime weeks to II or SFX or others.


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


> The more I think about it, the more I continue to lean back to the "prime week will be in higher demand" side. There are far more low value weeks than prime ones. If 5% of people trade up and 5% of people trade down, it'll have a far bigger impact on the top 10% of weeks than it does on bottom 50%.
> 
> Of course when/if prime weeks become harder to get (because they're now in the reach of far more people), some will say that RCI moved the goalposts and it's because of rentals.



. . . and some will drink the kool aid and say that RCI is incapable of any wrong.


----------



## bnoble

> I continue to lean back to the "prime week will be in higher demand" side.


I think that is in part based on generalizing from your own current preferences.


----------



## Tommart

*You are correct*



Carolinian said:


> As I recall, what you actually have are two weeks that are lock-offs, so that would really be 2 for 2, and in terms of m/f's it would also be 2 for 2.  Yes, people in that situation will very likely recombine their lockoffs.  However, those with 4 seperate m/f's for 4 seperate weeks, well that is a different kettle of fish altogether.
> 
> If I wanted to go anywhere in Hawaii, I would be looking to trade through HTSE, not RCI, anyway.



Your memory serves you well.  I have two locked pair of units.  

But I have never stayed in both sides so I view them as separate units.  I have two one-bedrooms and two two-bedrooms at Woodstone.

When I paid my $540 MF for 2011 for the two one-bedrooms, I considered it two $270 MFs.  I deposited them into RCI as separate units.  Not sure if I would have received the same points depositing them as one two-bedroom.  

I haven't paid the 2011 MF for the other locked unit(s).  We plan to use one of these if the other side provides enough additional points to reach Maui.

Thanks for the advice on HTSE.  I looked into it.  I'm not ready to pay $49 for membership, and I have already deposited weeks into RCI.

We went to Hawaii in 2009--Oaho and Big Island.  I originally planned to never go back, but my wife now wants to go to Maui. 

I can go to Kauai without additional points help (51 available units) via each of the one-bedroom deposits.  So, I only need help to get one week in Maui that will coordinate with one week in Kauai.  Hopefully, one two-bedroom week 24 unit will do that.

But as you recommended in an earlier post, I have the option of renting at Maui.  There are 53 available rental weeks for around $1300/week.

Tom


----------



## Bourne

Carolinian said:


> Oh, but your number of members and deposits WILL change, and not for the positive.  Crusin's post was right on the mark on that subject.



My comment was a quote from someone, and not my opinion.


----------



## Carolinian

I think one of the most aggraving aspects of the new exact number system is going to be the trades that are as a practical matter equal trades but have a slightly different exact number.  If you are on the short end of that equation, you will either have to buy more points, when that aspect becomes operational (which may be as early as the rollout) but there will likely be a minimum, or you will have to commit to depositing another week to grab just a few more points.  That other week then is committed to RCI and you cannot use it, rent it, or trade it with another exchange company.  This nickle and diming is one of the things that I despise about an exact number system.  Of course if you are on the positive end, you can just throw away the ''change back''.  Some will feel obligated to use it, and that means making another week captive of RCI.  Clean one for one trades give you a lot more flexibility in the sense of being able to use all your weeks the way you want to use them and not have extra weeks held captive by an exchange company.


----------



## timeos2

*You can choose to lose it either way - one is no choice one is your choice*



Carolinian said:


> I think one of the most aggraving aspects of the new exact number system is going to be the trades that are as a practical matter equal trades but have a slightly different exact number.  If you are on the short end of that equation, you will either have to buy more points, when that aspect becomes operational (which may be as early as the rollout) but there will likely be a minimum, or you will have to commit to depositing another week to grab just a few more points.  That other week then is committed to RCI and you cannot use it, rent it, or trade it with another exchange company.  This nickle and diming is one of the things that I despise about an exact number system.  Of course if you are on the positive end, you can just throw away the ''change back''.  Some will feel obligated to use it, and that means making another week captive of RCI.  Clean one for one trades give you a lot more flexibility in the sense of being able to use all your weeks the way you want to use them and not have extra weeks held captive by an exchange company.



Now that makes no sense at all. What is the difference (in a negative way only) between "throwing away" the "change back" and losing it from a "clean" one week for one week, lower value trade? At least with "change back" you have a choice - with the so called "clean" trade its just gone - period. 

Here is a theory that does not get off the ground from the start.


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> I think one of the most aggraving aspects of the new exact number system is going to be the trades that are as a practical matter equal trades but have a slightly different exact number. If you are on the short end of that equation, you will either have to buy more points, when that aspect becomes operational (which may be as early as the rollout) but there will likely be a minimum, or you will have to commit to depositing another week to grab just a few more points. That other week then is committed to RCI and you cannot use it, rent it, or trade it with another exchange company. This nickle and diming is one of the things that I despise about an exact number system. Of course if you are on the positive end, you can just throw away the ''change back''. Some will feel obligated to use it, and that means making another week captive of RCI. Clean one for one trades give you a lot more flexibility in the sense of being able to use all your weeks the way you want to use them and not have extra weeks held captive by an exchange company.


While some of your points may actually have some merit, I don't see any merit in any of this.

First, is the trading value truly that granular? (Recall that the trading value won't change, but will just become visible.) I suspect that it is not that granular, based on how many weeks various current deposits see. I'm anxious to find out. In practice, though, it doesn't make much difference.

If you're slightly short of the week that you want to exchange for, I think the new system would be quite a bit more appealing. Currently, you wouldn't even *see* the week you want. Now, you would be able to see it (if you choose to) and you'll at least have options to exchange into it.

As for what to do with any "change", I see that as an improvement as well. Currently, you have no choice. If you trade down, you get nothing back. In the future, you'll get the change and can choose to use it or not. If you deposit 6-12 months in advance, you have 30-36 months before it expires. I think that's a lot of time to use our exchanges and change, and I'm sure opportunities will arise.

It sounds like you're arguing just to argue. These points make absolutely no sense.


----------



## Carolinian

As I pointed out if you will read my post, it is not so much a problem in being nickled and dimed by very close exact numbers if you are on the high side, because you can indeed throw away the paltry change back.  It is the very close exact numbers where you are slightly on the down side.  In that situation you have to tie up an entire additional week or buy whatever the minimum amount of additional points (once the point buying aspect is operational) to do the deal.  These are the trades that are so close that they really are an even trade, thought the numbers may be very slightly different.



timeos2 said:


> Now that makes no sense at all. What is the difference (in a negative way only) between "throwing away" the "change back" and losing it from a "clean" one week for one week, lower value trade? At least with "change back" you have a choice - with the so called "clean" trade its just gone - period.
> 
> Here is a theory that does not get off the ground from the start.


----------



## Carolinian

Currently, in the system from the way it has always been explained, you traded within a range.  No exact number was ever given and the speculation was maybe 5%.  That means that in the current system you do get very slight trades up, and since there is no way that you could ever get every number exactly correct to draw the line, that makes sense and is fair.  So that means in these situations of numbers very close, you now DO see the week and do a clean one for one trade for it. You do not have to come up with extra points.  Bootleg had some comments on this back when he was posting, and as an RCI employee I trust his knowledge about how the system worked more than I do your speculation.

And you are truly one of the kool aid drinkers who takes RCI at face value when they claim that values will not change.  Come on, it seems every time that Tuggers have noticed major trading power changes, RCI lies and claims that there has been no change in trading power.  From experience with RCI's clearly fictitious claims in the past that trading power has not changed, we should very well know what to expect this time around.  If you had been around when they first started renting to the general public, I suspect you would have bought their lies that they were not doing it, hook line and sinker, too.




MichaelColey said:


> While some of your points may actually have some merit, I don't see any merit in any of this.
> 
> First, is the trading value truly that granular? (Recall that the trading value won't change, but will just become visible.) I suspect that it is not that granular, based on how many weeks various current deposits see. I'm anxious to find out. In practice, though, it doesn't make much difference.
> 
> If you're slightly short of the week that you want to exchange for, I think the new system would be quite a bit more appealing. Currently, you wouldn't even *see* the week you want. Now, you would be able to see it (if you choose to) and you'll at least have options to exchange into it.
> 
> As for what to do with any "change", I see that as an improvement as well. Currently, you have no choice. If you trade down, you get nothing back. In the future, you'll get the change and can choose to use it or not. If you deposit 6-12 months in advance, you have 30-36 months before it expires. I think that's a lot of time to use our exchanges and change, and I'm sure opportunities will arise.
> 
> It sounds like you're arguing just to argue. These points make absolutely no sense.


----------



## "Roger"

Some issues that have come up lately.  I don't know how the new system will work, but can say what happens within Points.

Lockoffs:  If you deposit both sides of a lockoff, RCI treats it just as if you deposited the two different sides individually.  That makes sense because what would stop someone from depositing first one side, then a day later the other.  Because of that, lockoffs garner more points than similar sized non-lockoffs.  For example, if, in a given area for a given season, a one bedroom is worth 40,000 and a two bedroom is worth 65,000 (one bedrooms are never just half of a two bedroom), then a unit at a resort that has a two bedroom lockoff garners 80,000.  

Coming up just short:  If I come up just short on the number of points I need, there are two things that I can do.  First, I can borrow from next year's points.  In essence, that means that over the years, I have to average what my allotment is.  This is the better alternative.  Secondly, I can "rent" (total misnomer - "buy" is the correct word) some extra points from RCI.  The price is such that it is not excessive for a few points, but would really tally up if I tried to "rent" points for something entirely out of my range. (Personally, I think that if I get into a position that I need to rent points, it is my own fault.)

While some of us are accused of drinking kool aid by believing RCI (when all else fails, try slurring your opposition), it is hard to resist commenting that the same someone buys into the claim that behind the secret curtain RCI exercises a certain degree of forgiveness with regard to trading power.  How do we know that? Wouldn't the prospect of skimming - something which the same person accuses RCI of - give them an incentive  to do just the opposite - lie about your trading power in the opposite direction?

This is the accountability within the secret system:  You can call up and ask a VC if your trading power is being calculated correctly.  They take five and then tell you yes.  (I am not saying that they do cheat.  On the other hand, it bothers me that if errors are made - and RCI does make errors - you are given no way of showing RCI that they have occurred.)


----------



## bnoble

> How do we know that?


Having paid quite a bit of attention to trading power differences both pre- and post-5/30/09, I get the sense that any "forgiveness" that might have been in the system was eliminated on that date, and is no longer in place.

I could be completely wrong about that, but that's what it looks like to me.


----------



## Carolinian

If the extra points RCI sells to members of Points Lite are as cheap as you suggest and the minimum is low, then this is where you will see the trading up occuring in the new system and will make the better inventory even harder to get for those trying to trade comparable weeks.  That is fine, because that will run a lot of it to SFX where I am now trading one of my summer UK weeks.

It will be interesting to see if the rental of extra weeks is part of the original rollout or a later ''enhancement''.  The source on that information said there was some question as to when it would be effective.

Roger, I have said before that because RCI has an incentive to cheat due to its rental program, the best option is probably the fully published system, even if is uses those aggravating exact numbers.  A fully nonpublished system made a lot of sense before they got into this rental operation.  The partially published system, however, remains the worst option of all.

As far as what RCI should be required to reveal, a lot of the facts and figures about its rental operations would be at the top of my list, and they should be required to be shown to prospective buyers.  State laws have required exchange companies to provide timeshare buyers with a disclosure guide that lists a lot things as it is, but those laws were written before the rental programs took off.  Legislators need to revisit those and make RCI publish a whole lot more information if it wants to rent out exchange deposits.  That is the disclosure that the timeshare industry really needs.

It is not just errors that are the problem but deliberate distortions, when developers negotiate their numbers with RCI, which I know for a fact that BIS on the OBX did with RCI Points, as part of a group of GC resorts.  There is no way to guard against that unless a lot of sunlight is allowed to shine into how the numbers are compiled.






"Roger" said:


> Some issues that have come up lately.  I don't know how the new system will work, but can say what happens within Points.
> 
> Lockoffs:  If you deposit both sides of a lockoff, RCI treats it just as if you deposited the two different sides individually.  That makes sense because what would stop someone from depositing first one side, then a day later the other.  Because of that, lockoffs garner more points than similar sized non-lockoffs.  For example, if, in a given area for a given season, a one bedroom is worth 40,000 and a two bedroom is worth 65,000 (one bedrooms are never just half of a two bedroom), then a unit at a resort that has a two bedroom lockoff garners 80,000.
> 
> Coming up just short:  If I come up just short on the number of points I need, there are two things that I can do.  First, I can borrow from next year's points.  In essence, that means that over the years, I have to average what my allotment is.  This is the better alternative.  Secondly, I can "rent" (total misnomer - "buy" is the correct word) some extra points from RCI.  The price is such that it is not excessive for a few points, but would really tally up if I tried to "rent" points for something entirely out of my range. (Personally, I think that if I get into a position that I need to rent points, it is my own fault.)
> 
> While some of us are accused of drinking kool aid by believing RCI (when all else fails, try slurring your opposition), it is hard to resist commenting that the same someone buys into the claim that behind the secret curtain RCI exercises a certain degree of forgiveness with regard to trading power.  How do we know that? Wouldn't the prospect of skimming - something which the same person accuses RCI of - give them an incentive  to do just the opposite - lie about your trading power in the opposite direction?
> 
> This is the accountability within the secret system:  You can call up and ask a VC if your trading power is being calculated correctly.  They take five and then tell you yes.  (I am not saying that they do cheat.  On the other hand, it bothers me that if errors are made - and RCI does make errors - you are given no way of showing RCI that they have occurred.)


----------



## Bourne

MichaelColey said:


> First, is the trading value truly that granular? (Recall that the trading value won't change, but will just become visible.)



FWIV, RCI went from four bands to six bands on 5/09. Resort's trading power is always fluid based on week/time/size etc. And no, there are no plans of modifying the bands anytime soon. The DVC change burned a big enough hole in the IT budget... 

And now I should just shut up and disappear...:ignore:


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> If the extra points RCI sells to members of Points Lite are as cheap as you suggest and the minimum is low, then this is where you will see the trading up occuring in the new system and will make the better inventory even harder to get for those trying to trade comparable weeks.  ...


What I said is that if you only needed a few extra points, the price is not that great.  (Think of it as a special fee that you have to pay in order to get the few extra points that you need.)  If you are truly trying to make any kind of sizable trade up, the fee begins to add up and becomes quite substantial.  Anyone who follows this route is truly throwing money away.

Let me try putting it this way.  The price per point for "renting" points figured on a per point basis is quite high.  If, however, you need only a few points, the total cost is not that great.  (Multiply a big number times a small number and you get a fairly small number.)  If you need lots of points, you are now multiplying a big number times a big number and get a big number. So, no, trading up to the really good inventory via renting points will not be popular (if done at all).


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> As I recall, what you actually have are two weeks that are lock-offs, so that would really be 2 for 2, and in terms of m/f's it would also be 2 for 2.  Yes, people in that situation will very likely recombine their lockoffs.  However, those with 4 seperate m/f's for 4 seperate weeks, well that is a different kettle of fish altogether.
> 
> If I wanted to go anywhere in Hawaii, I would be looking to trade through HTSE, not RCI, anyway.


Yes, he has 2 lockoffs, but the idea still works the same with 4 regular weeks.  Maui weeks are available for rent for $1300 each, so 2 weeks would be a total of $2600.  Reduce that by $400 to cover your exchange fees, and if you pay mantenance fees of $2200 or less ($550 per week) for your 4 weeks, you're ahead of the game by exchanging.  For someone looking for the "once in a lifetime" exchange, trading those 4 weeks would be reasonable.  No, it's not something people are going to do every year, but is definitely within the realm of possibilities.


Carolinian said:


> There will also be those who do not want to be tangled up with ''change back'' because they do not want to be bound to RCI for a future transaction.  They may want to use their week the following year, rent it, or use a different exchange company.  That is one of the reasons I have always prefered clean one for one trades.  And most people who buy high season to trade is because that is the type of week they want to trade into.


If you don't want the change, you can always ignore it.  Just because you have the change doesn't mean you are require to use it, or to deposit another week.


Carolinian said:


> . . . and some will drink the kool aid and say that RCI is incapable of any wrong.


Please Steve, name one person here who has claimed RCI can do no wrong.  Just because we disagree with you on this issue doesn't mean we think they are perfect.  If anything, we are the moderates.  You think RCI is so evil that you won't consider the possibility that this change might be a good thing.


Carolinian said:


> I think one of the most aggraving aspects of the new exact number system is going to be the trades that are as a practical matter equal trades but have a slightly different exact number.  If you are on the short end of that equation, you will either have to buy more points, when that aspect becomes operational (which may be as early as the rollout) but there will likely be a minimum, or you will have to commit to depositing another week to grab just a few more points.  That other week then is committed to RCI and you cannot use it, rent it, or trade it with another exchange company.  This nickle and diming is one of the things that I despise about an exact number system.  Of course if you are on the positive end, you can just throw away the ''change back''.  Some will feel obligated to use it, and that means making another week captive of RCI.  Clean one for one trades give you a lot more flexibility in the sense of being able to use all your weeks the way you want to use them and not have extra weeks held captive by an exchange company.


If they feel onbligated to use the change, thet's their perogative.  That would be a personal decision, not something required or all members.


Carolinian said:


> As I pointed out if you will read my post, it is not so much a problem in being nickled and dimed by very close exact numbers if you are on the high side, because you can indeed throw away the paltry change back.  It is the very close exact numbers where you are slightly on the down side.  In that situation you have to tie up an entire additional week or buy whatever the minimum amount of additional points (once the point buying aspect is operational) to do the deal.  These are the trades that are so close that they really are an even trade, thought the numbers may be very slightly different.


But do we know for a fact that those trades happen even now?  We have been told there is tolerance built into the system, but do we know for a fact that people indeed trade up on a numerical basis?  Since the numbers will be dynamic, we don't know if that same level of tolerance will be built in or not.  I also wonder how much of that tolerance is really just the effect of late deposits.  If the you deposit you 45,000 point week one year out, and want to exchange into a 50,000 point week, you still might be able to, if someone deposits it 10 months out (10% discount after 2 months would mean that week is now worth 45,000 points).  RCI also could design the system to allow for the tolerance, by assigning a slightly higher number of points at deposit compared to the actual cost to exchange.  




"Roger" said:


> While some of us are accused of drinking kool aid by believing RCI (when all else fails, try slurring your opposition), it is hard to resist commenting that the same someone buys into the claim that behind the secret curtain RCI exercises a certain degree of forgiveness with regard to trading power.  How do we know that? Wouldn't the prospect of skimming - something which the same person accuses RCI of - give them an incentive  to do just the opposite - lie about your trading power in the opposite direction?
> 
> This is the accountability within the secret system:  You can call up and ask a VC if your trading power is being calculated correctly.  They take five and then tell you yes.  (I am not saying that they do cheat.  On the other hand, it bothers me that if errors are made - and RCI does make errors - you are given no way of showing RCI that they have occurred.)


Exactly.  At least with the new system, if you don't like the number, don't deposit.  If they change your number, you have something concrete to use a proof.  "You game me 20,000 points for my week, and now suddenly I only have 10,000."  If it's a matter of suddenly not being qualified for certain exchanges, you can see if either the weeks are no longer in the spacebank, or of the cost went up.


bnoble said:


> Having paid quite a bit of attention to trading power differences both pre- and post-5/30/09, I get the sense that any "forgiveness" that might have been in the system was eliminated on that date, and is no longer in place.
> 
> I could be completely wrong about that, but that's what it looks like to me.


That's what it loos like to me too, but others will of course disagree.


----------



## Bourne

Word on the street also states that RCI displaying your week's internal trading power is technically incorrect. 

What will be displayed is the encompassing band's upper range limit. :ignore:


----------



## Tommart

*Please Clarify*



Bourne said:


> Word on the street also states that RCI displaying your week's internal trading power is technically incorrect.
> 
> What will be displayed is the encompassing band's upper range limit. :ignore:



Bourne,

I'm not sure I understand.  Are you just kidding?

I notice that I qualify for units with slightly greater trading power than my own.  For example, I recently deposited a one bedroom, week 31 unit.  When I search for vacations through RCI using my week, I can select a 2-bedroom unit in week 31 at my resort.  (However, this may be due to extra credit for depositing early.)

Are you saying if my trade value is 26 that RCI will show the upper limit which may be 30, rather than 26?

Does this also mean that if someone selects my week 31 unit, it will cost them 30 points -- the band limit -- rather than the true trading power?

I didn't get this impression when I discussed it with an RCI rep.  She stated that we would know our trading value and that we would see the extra points given for depositing early and how the extra points reduces the closer the deposit is made to check-in.

Tom


----------



## Carolinian

If that is true then all of the usual suspects who regularly support RCI in whatever will not have what they think they are going to have.  Interesting.

This is starting to sound like Delta's ''three tier award system'' where an award ticket can end up being several times the number of miles that is supposed to be the high tier, or in other words, a big crap shoot.




Bourne said:


> Word on the street also states that RCI displaying your week's internal trading power is technically incorrect.
> 
> What will be displayed is the encompassing band's upper range limit. :ignore:


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> If that is true then all of the usual suspects who regularly support RCI in whatever will not have what they think they are going to have.  Interesting.
> 
> This is starting to sound like Delta's ''three tier award system'' where an award ticket can end up being several times the number of miles that is supposed to be the high tier, or in other words, a big crap shoot.


Not at all.  I expect something where I know exactly what I can exchange into, and why.  I expect to know just how much more it will "cost" to trade to something better.

Even if RCI does sell points in order to upgrade, is that any different than what many of the smaller exchange companies do - trade like for like in terms of size, and offer an upgrade for a fee?

Please stop telling us what we want, and what we should want.  We know what we want - something where we can choose to deposit or not, based on a reasonable expectation of what we can get as a trade.  We also want to know whether we can't get an exchange because we don't qualify, or because it's simply not available.  Very simple.  If RCI ends up assigning points in bands, that's OK too; granularity could be better, but bands have their advantage too - they're what we're used to already.  Bottom line - how many points do I get for my deposit, and what can I get for that many points?


----------



## Carolinian

Bottom line, I guess, is that RCI can always count on you to be their cheerleader, no matter what they do.

What we should want is a system that is fully transparent.  What we thought we would be getting was bad enough with the lack of transparency of how values were set.  Now it appears that it may be even more opaque than that and you are still a ''happy''.



Mel said:


> Not at all.  I expect something where I know exactly what I can exchange into, and why.  I expect to know just how much more it will "cost" to trade to something better.
> 
> Even if RCI does sell points in order to upgrade, is that any different than what many of the smaller exchange companies do - trade like for like in terms of size, and offer an upgrade for a fee?
> 
> Please stop telling us what we want, and what we should want.  We know what we want - something where we can choose to deposit or not, based on a reasonable expectation of what we can get as a trade.  We also want to know whether we can't get an exchange because we don't qualify, or because it's simply not available.  Very simple.  If RCI ends up assigning points in bands, that's OK too; granularity could be better, but bands have their advantage too - they're what we're used to already.  Bottom line - how many points do I get for my deposit, and what can I get for that many points?


----------



## timeos2

*We don't have a count*



Carolinian said:


> Bottom line, I guess, is that RCI can always count on you to be their cheerleader, no matter what they do.
> 
> What we should want is a system that is fully transparent.  What we thought we would be getting was bad enough with the lack of transparency of how values were set.  Now it appears that it may be even more opaque than that and you are still a ''happy''.



My educated guess is that based on the various threads about this subject is that the "transparency" you want so badly just isn't all that important to the vast majority of RCI members. They do want the ability to know what their week is worth and what the week(s) they want to trade into are valued at.  If that is the case then RCI is making a positive move and most members seem to agree. 

I don't think there is anything RCI could do that would bring you back to their side now.  The timeshare world has changed, things have changed at RCI (for better or worse - there is some of both for certain) and even if the so-called "moles" that you like to base most all your assertions  on were in fact correct those things happened 4-5 or more years ago. It's not the same world or RCI as even that small step back in time represents and it sure isn't the world of RCI when it was first founded.  Today we have to deal with what we have and not try to go back to things that weren't all that good, but hold nostalgic appeal looked back on with a bit of rose colored lenses.


----------



## Mel

No matter what RCI does, you won't be happy until they are driven out of business.  

You want it granular, but if it's too granular, people will lose the ability to trade up.  So you don't really want it granular.  But when you hear they might have anticipated that need, you're still not happy.

Rather than lament that fact the the system is changing, shouldn't we try to see how we can make the new system work for the members?  RCI is changing the system, and we can choose to learn how to benefit from the new system, or we can leave RCI.  Your choice to leave is fine, but why don't you allow the rest of us to at least see if the new system is worth staying?  

You paint RCI as a huge evil corporation out to take our weeks from us, with little or no compensation.  The only way that will happen is if we willingly give them our weeks over and over.  If you had your way, RCI would be legislated out of existence.  Theirs may not be a perfect exchange systems, but neither are any of the others.   We are each free to choose whichever one suits our own needs.  I don't see the smaller companies suiting my needs because they don't have the volume.   They also don't publish the complete details of how their systems work.  You like DAE, and that's great for you, but I don't see how thay treat peak week owners any more fairly than RCI.  If you deposit with they you stand in line behind everyone else who placed a request before you, so the only way to get to the front of the line for the best weeks is to requests them as far ahead as possible  You want that week in Maui, you had better deposit something 2 years ahead of when you want to go, and use that to request - but that means paying for that vacation 2 years ahead, and knowing your vacation schedule that far ahead.  What percentage of RCI members really plan that far out?


----------



## AwayWeGo

*And Not Only That . . .*




Mel said:


> No matter what RCI does, you won't be happy until they are driven out of business.


 *. . .* if you don't agree then you get lumped in with the _RCI Can Do No Wrong Crowd_. 

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


----------



## Bourne

I don't want to open up a can of wh....

Mel is right on the money. to take an example, we all know a tiger pup 115k level 2 band trader pulls a 1 br Dvc...it does it today not because tiger pups trade value(43) is equal to dvc weeks(49) trade value. It is beacuse it is in the same band/grid. 

Like I said before, what is etched in stone is the deposited weeks number. Available weeks move around a bit based on inventory. Not a lot, but a bit. I.e. They normally stay within a band. Yes, things may sneak out if on the edge. 

To show single digit granularity is confusing to the regular user. Hence the band value. It eliminates 95% of visual fluctuation. And like Mel pointed out, can I see what I could see before. Yes I can. 

It also makes credit management easier.

Like, I said before, I do not see how this can possibly be a bad idea. The big plus is I can see what I could not see before. I can still do what I can do before in terms of trading in or below my grid/band. And should I go under, I get a credit for future use. 

And there is always inventory that expires. RCI can potentially make more money as number of trades increase, other parameters of the equation remaining the same.

Disclaimer...this is still not in prod yet...and like they say...things can change till the last minute...


----------



## rickandcindy23

timeos2 said:


> The question keeps getting asked "What are the trading power criteria - without that values are worthless".
> 
> Here is the answer per RCI Weeks.
> 
> This link is part of the overall RCI presentation regarding the new ability of members to see trade values. And it specifically says
> 
> "The trading power of your deposit isn’t changing! It has always been there and is used to determine the exchange options available to you, and it still will. The added flexibility is in that now you will SEE the trading power of your deposit, as well as the trading power of available exchange vacations. For a detailed refresher on how we’ve calculated your Deposit Trading Power for the last 35 years, click here."
> 
> So as I originally asked when this thread started - how does releasing the information hidden but applied for 35+ years hurt members?  To me it does not. It is a long overdue change that benefits members.



Thanks for that link, John!  I found this info very enlightening, because I always worried that depositing a week less than 12 months out would hurt the trading power, but it appears that isn't the case.  9 months is okay.  

I think my main worry is my studio deposits see about everything there is right now, and I have a feeling that size might matter in the new system.  We will soon see.


----------



## bnoble

> To show single digit granularity is confusing to the regular user. Hence the band value.


Very interesting.

Very.

A coarse-grain model like that could provide a lot of interesting opportunities for folks in point systems that can deposit different sizes/seasons...

Edited to add: it still looks to me as if there are more fine-grained trading values being applied than just six bands right now, though.  I'm seeing substantive variations between deposits in the 2-6% range.  So, if this band-based scheme comes about, it may well look more like it did for the year or so *pre* 5/30/09, where it looked as though there really were only about six trading levels, period.


----------



## bnoble

> I always worried that depositing a week less than 12 months out would hurt the trading power, but it appears that isn't the case. 9 months is okay.


This is a recent change---in the last year or so.  It was 12 months prior to that.


----------



## Mel

bnoble said:


> Very interesting.
> 
> Very.
> 
> A coarse-grain model like that could provide a lot of interesting opportunities for folks in point systems that can deposit different sizes/seasons...
> 
> Edited to add: it still looks to me as if there are more fine-grained trading values being applied than just six bands right now, though.  I'm seeing substantive variations between deposits in the 2-6% range.  So, if this band-based scheme comes about, it may well look more like it did for the year or so *pre* 5/30/09, where it looked as though there really were only about six trading levels, period.


As soon as the system goes live, we should be able to tell exactly how many bands there are, if that is in fact what they do.  We take a good trader, and see what it can trade for at various levels.  I would think it would be obvious if this is what they do.

Perhaps every band is separated by 10,000 credits:
We see last minute and very weak traders (deep blue studios) going for 20,000 points
Slightly better week for 30,000
increasingly better weeks for each increment,
until we reach the best of whatever is available for whatever RCI chooses as the top value.

There are 2 issues that could make this interesting:

1 - how the fluctuations of supply/demand and date of deposit influence placement within the bands

2 - how RCI will handle all the outside point system deposits (and perhaps lockoffs too).  Will there be an advantage to depositing larger units, or smaller?  Will it make any difference?  

With bands, if they assign the closest band (so a 44,900 point unit gets 40,000 but a 45,000 rounds up to 50,000) would it be better to deposit that lockoff as a single unit for 89,000 rounded up to 90,000 rather than as 2 units worth 40,000 each? If deposited 1 month earlier and worth 45,000 each  it might be better to deposit as 2 units for 50,000 each instead of 90,000 for the combined unit...or will RCI simply assign a value for the full unit based on the individual units.


----------



## MichaelColey

Mel said:


> Perhaps every band is separated by 10,000 credits:


The example they give shows 10, 15, 20 and 30. If there are six bands, perhaps the trading values will be 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30. It's hard to know, though, until they roll it out. Maybe some of those who have seen some preliminary information can shed some additional light on things.


----------



## Bourne

The bands always existed. They exist in II too...the grids. The number of bands increased back in 5/2009. And trust me, its a huge undertaking. That thing does not get done on a whim. They are not changing anytime soo. 

Here is a very tight example. Prez Villas Myrtle 2B July 4 week will put you in the top band if provided 1 year out. Give it two months out and you see a considerable drop. BUT, and the big BUT, once deposited, it has a static value. Its our currency. This is nothing new and we have known it for years. Its just that we will know this currency by a numerical value. 

To dumb it down, available weeks also come in with a fixed value. However, its a bottle of bad wine...as it ages, its value decreases. Multiple other factors effect it also with some being bulk banking. This again, is something that we already knew. However, we would be provided its currency value. 

THE Big Huge difference is...
1. RCI could not tease us and show Manhattan club 2Br only to not let us pick it up without reason. a.k.a. flood the results but mark them as touch-me-nots. Now you can see what the store is selling. IMHO, that is huge.
2. If I am buying a week with lesser value, its nice to have credit back that I can use later. 

In layman's terms, all exchange companies have a spillage factor in terms of weeks. A % of deposit always expire. All RCI is trying to do is squeeze out more revenue by trying to entice you and me to use more weeks and limit the amount of spillage.


----------



## Dave599

MichaelColey said:


> The example they give shows 10, 15, 20 and 30. If there are six bands, perhaps the trading values will be 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30. It's hard to know, though, until they roll it out. Maybe some of those who have seen some preliminary information can shed some additional light on things.



This is just an example, Trading value will be between 5 and 60 (max) and can be any number in between -  6, 11, 23 etc I have been told most 70% or more fall between 10 and the low 20's Most of the values I have been told make sense, xmas week at orange lake 3br - 50, Manhattan club seems to get low to mid 40's anytime, (this one through me a bit) banyan club 60 (Banyan club in my opinion is 1 step below a roach motel) I guess its location location location. Banking late I have been told is going to really hurt, the example I was given was someone putting in Hersey park (should be a great trader) only a couple of weeks before check in getting a 7. I have been told 3 weeks to go rci will close nov 12,13,14 and everything will go live on the 15th, rci will NOT announce the time until they are sure it will roll out as planned just in case they have to push it back.........

Dave


----------



## MichaelColey

Very interesting.  So it sounds like the bands will be going away?  For instance, if the bands were 5-10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50 and 51-60 (and I'm just making an example), previously someone with a 25 could "trade up" for a 30 (since they're in the same band).  Now, they would get change back for anything 5-24 and would need credit for 26-30, and would also have visibility into 31-60.  So there's a little downside, particularly for those whose weeks are near the bottom of their band.

I've seen charts showing what percent of your trading value you get for different times.  I don't remember exactly, but I think it was 100% for 9-24 months, 80% for 6-9 months, 50% for 3-6 months, and 30% for 2 weeks - 3 months.  That's from memory, plus I'm not sure if it was speculation, observation, or from a more official source.  A trading value of 30, two months out, would only get 9, so yeah it's pretty significant.

I still have 4 deposits left (and will have one more before mid-November).  I typically search for things I can barely see (so likely a "trade up"), but I'm not too stressed about having deposits remain after the change.  I'll shift my strategy at that point and combine weeks to get things I can't even see right now.

I think that in the same way we currently look at points/MF$ in RCI Points, we'll look at TP/MF$ in RCI Weeks.





Dave599 said:


> This is just an example, Trading value will be between 5 and 60 (max) and can be any number in between - 6, 11, 23 etc I have been told most 70% or more fall between 10 and the low 20's Most of the values I have been told make sense, xmas week at orange lake 3br - 50, Manhattan club seems to get low to mid 40's anytime, (this one through me a bit) banyan club 60 (Banyan club in my opinion is 1 step below a roach motel) I guess its location location location. Banking late I have been told is going to really hurt, the example I was given was someone putting in Hersey park (should be a great trader) only a couple of weeks before check in getting a 7.


----------



## bnoble

I think we've seen two different answers on the question of bands.  Dave599's answer is that we will get precise numbers in the interface that is deployed.  Bourne suggests that, instead, we'll see something slightly more coarse grained than the underlying "true value" to simplify things a little bit, and reduce the amount of churn of what's in and what's out.

I suspect that both were considered at some point along the process of developing this new interface.  But, I would not be surprised to see the coarse-grained model being the one that ultimately wins out---the average timeshare owner is already confused enough; creating a scheme where credit values required seem to change often would clearly not help things.  

But, if we do get the coarse-grain model, then the trading system will look much as it did in the year leading up to 5/30/09, when our trade tests here and OT seemed to clearly suggest a small number of very well-defined trading power levels, vs. the system we seem to have now which is more fine-grained.

Another three weeks or so, (plus the month or two of dealing with a broken web site after that ), and we should know which scheme won---assuming it even manages to happen on time.  I get the sense from speaking with guides that they are still in active development as opposed to final test&adjust...


----------



## Tommart

Bourne said:


> The bands always existed. They exist in II too...the grids. The number of bands increased back in 5/2009........"



Slightly off subject--but a light went off in my head.

I have a two-bedroom locked unit that I trade as two one-bedrooms.

They are currently deposited with RCI, and I could trade each for a two-bedroom in my resort during the same week.  

Light:  The use of bands makes this possible.  Apparently, both one and two bedrooms are in the same band during week 31 at Woodstone, but the extra points that I received depositing early may have been a factor.

Conclusion:  Good thing I didn't trade this as a 2-bedroom.

Also, the last time I went to a Woodstone presentation, they told me that for only $11K I can trade-in and upgrade to a 4-bedroom and have greater trading power.  In fact, he said I would increase my power by 400% because only 20% of timeshares are one-bedrooms.  That would have been $11k wasted--not to mention the higher maintenance fees.

Time will tell with the new RCI points approach, but I have to believe that the two-bedroom will get a little more points than the one-bedroom.


----------



## krj9999

I'm real curious about the unit size issue as well.

It's not clear to me how I will have the same trading power if larger sized units require additional credits.


----------



## Texasbelle

*RCI Weeks "credits"*

Endless Vacation magazine for winter 2010, page 74 talks about the new weeks system.  Those of us who did not want points now will have "credits."  This is pretty much points without the exorbitant cost, so everyone who owns points should be ticked off and everyone who didn't want points also should be ticked off.  What a company!  
Had a discussion with better half, "Do you want to go to timeshare X or do you want to spacebank it?"  BH, "Where would we go?"  "I don't know.  We would have to pick one and see if we could trade in."  BH, "I'd rather go to ours."  Moral of the story: buy where you want to go.


----------



## Timmuscat

Has anyone heard anything lately about how generic Wyndham deposits will be valued in this new RCI system?  Will there still be any preference for Wyndham deposits trading back into Wyndham properties?  

Tim


----------



## Tommart

*Big Deal*

Texas Belle,

This has been discussed a lot.  See "RCI Weeks to offer value transparency."

Most of us think that this is a good change.

RCI claims they are not changing the way they credit weeks, they are just showing people what the credit is.

However, there are desirable changes.  If you trade for a lesser unit, you get "change back."  If you want to trade for something better than what you have, you can use the change back credits or combine weeks.  And we believe that you will know the value of your week, before you deposit.

Also, when you buy a timeshare, you will know it's trading value (credit) before you purchase.

However, I believe that over time knowing trading value will make low value weeks even lower, and high value weeks even higher.

Tom


----------



## MichaelColey

Yep, preferences is another big unknown.  Currently, if you have a preference somewhere, it looks like you have extra trading value.  For instance even my worst deposit in one group sees almost everything in that group, while a deposit with a higher trading value but from another group sees less.

Some of the things I'm anxious to see how they'll work in the new system are:

1) Last minute exchanges (less than 45 days out).
2) Ongoing searches.  (Will we be able to set one up for something that we don't have enough trading power for?)
3) Home group/resort preferences.


----------



## MichaelColey

Thread is here:

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118636

Does anyone have the text of the article?  I've been an RCI member since June but my subscription apparently hasn't started yet.  (It does come automatically doesn't it?)  I'm curious if there's any new details there.


----------



## krj9999

Its pretty basic info, less than on the enhancements link from RCI 



MichaelColey said:


> Thread is here:
> 
> http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118636
> 
> Does anyone have the text of the article?  I've been an RCI member since June but my subscription apparently hasn't started yet.  (It does come automatically doesn't it?)  I'm curious if there's any new details there.


----------



## Tommart

*It may be in the mail*



MichaelColey said:


> Thread is here:
> 
> ... I've been an RCI member since June but my subscription apparently hasn't started yet.....



I haven't received my issue as well.  They must be in the mail.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

Michael,

Some of us get more than one copy when RCI sends out the Endless Vacation magazine and some of us get none, zip, nada! 

It is interesting to note that the link originally put up by RCI at their website disappeared early this month and has yet to re-appear at their INFO section.

But, thanks to you we still have access; but not through the RCI site.

http://app.rci.com/landing/InsideRCI/memenhancements/ 

Regarding the information published in the Endless Vacation magazine.

1) It was a two page spread under Member Benefits on pages 74 & 75.

2) The text which follows is attributed to Endless Vacation magazine, Winter 2010 Edition Pages 74 and 75:



> *ENHANCEMENTS TO YOUR WEEKS MEMBERSHIP COMING SOON *​
> *Here's the scoop!* ​
> Throughout the past two years, we've launched many new features to make your vacation planning easier and more fun.
> Later this year, we're unveiling more exciting changes that will give you even greater flexibility and more choices.
> It's what you've been asking for, so be on the lookout!
> 
> a  *good*   thing
> 
> gets even
> 
> *better!*
> 
> To be sure you're ready to take advantage of these exciting new enhancements:
> 
> 1.  Deposit your week(s).
> 
> 2.   Ensure your membership is paid up to date.
> 
> 3.  Make sure you have paid your maintenance fee at your home resort.
> 
> *RCI SERVES UP SOME CHANGES*​
> Trading Power *
> 
> Deposit Trading Power will still be determined in the same way, but now you will be able to see what that number is. Soon you'll be able to see all available weeks for Exchange vacations, and compare the trading power of those weeks to your Deposit Trading Power.
> 
> Deposit Credits​
> If you confirm an Exchange with a lower trading power than your deposited week, you'll get a Deposit Credit for the remaining trading power you didn't use, which will appear as a new Deposit on your account for you to use however you like. Combine it with another Deposit or use it on its own to look for and book another vacation! **
> 
> Combine Deposited Weeks
> 
> If you want to trade up to an Exchange with a trading power higher than that of any of your Deposits, you can combine two or more of your weeks and their trading power, giving you access to vacations that you might not have been able to book in the past.​
> * For additional information on trading power, please see the Terms and Conditions of Weeks Subscribing Membership available at rci.com.
> 
> ** These vacations are limited. Destinations and travel times are subject to availability and confirmed on a first come, first served basis. Offer includes only accomodations and specifically excludes travel costs and other expenses that may be incurred. Taxes, additional fees and charges may apply. All-inclusive resorts may charge a mandatory all-inclusive fee. Promotional discounts and offers may not apply to all properties. Other restrictions may apply. Offer void where prohibited by law. CST: 204655-50. Registeration as a seller of travel does not constitute approval by the State of California. Fla. Seller of Travel Reg. No. ST-26552.*
> 
> Nevada Seller of Travel Registration No. 2002-0793.*
> Washington Seller of Travel Reg. No. 602357907


----------



## MichaelColey

Thanks so much for reposting that!  I do see one additional piece of new information:





> If you want to trade up to an Exchange with a trading power higher than that of any of your Deposits, *you can combine two or more of your weeks* and their trading power, giving you access to vacations that you might not have been able to book in the past.


Previously, all that I had seen mentioned was combining two.  If it was only two, that still would have restricted trades up a bit (two 20s can only see up to 40), but if you can combine more than two you can exchange for anything (assuming you have enough weeks).

I can see some people vacationing less often but going to nicer places or more desirable times (essentially turning their every year Blue weeks into every other year Red weeks, etc.).

I know that some will trade up and some will trade down, but I still think the impact will be more evident on the prime weeks since the dog weeks are plentiful and the prime weeks are more rare.


----------



## Mel

This also confirms that the weeks can be combined, rather than just adding leftover points to another week (as was discussed fairly early in the other thread).

I agree that it could result in higher demand for some of those peak weeks, but I suspect that extra demand will taper off over time.

While people will be willing to combine those 2 or 3 weeks for that one special vacation, I don't think it will be a regular occurance - once they complete that exchange it might be a few years before they do it again.  The first year or two we will see demand from everyone that wants to do this, but those who are successful will not necessarily want to do so again. 

This could be a good thing, as those who make that one-time trade far outside their trade window may decide they want to own a better valued week.  Others might decide that they're happy with what they have, for the price they have - that special vacation is nice, but maybe not worth 3 times the cost of what they're used to.

We should also not that RCI has tated that Trading Power will still be determined the same way, suggesting that the "formula" that certain people want published is not changing at all.

For those that don't have their magazines, I like the visual that they used with it.  On the left is a picture of a plain vanilla ice cream cone, while on the right the sugar cone has been dipped in chocolate with sprinkles, and their are three scoops of ice cream - vanilla topped with chocolate then strawberry - an apt image.  The cone on the right will obviously be more expensive, but sometimes we're willing to have one such cone, rather than several plain vanilla cones.


----------



## Tommart

*Additional Wish*

I hope that Resale websites like TUG and ebay show the "credit value" of RCI weeks offered for sale.

I recognize that this may be more inaccurate than the "maintenance fee" numbers, e.g. value may or may not include early deposit extra credit, so one should not take them as gospel.

Better yet, hopefully we'll be able to see the current credit value of all resorts/weeks on the RCI website without adding the early deposit credit.

I suspect you'll be able to see credits if you have a week deposited, but hopefully we'll be able to see credit values without depositing a week.


----------



## Mel

To expand upon your thoughs on ongoing searches:

If we have one week worth 42 points, and another worth 16, will we have the option of setting the number of points we can use for that ongoing search, or will we be restricted to a choice of 16 or 42 (one of our weeks), and possibly 58 (the two weeks combined).

Then there's the issue of bulk banking.

Right now if a resort bulk banks, I'm assuming what happens is the supply drives down the credits for the newest banked weeks.  As exchanges are made, and the supply diminishes, the credits required increases back to where it was before.

While the timing of bulk bankings are valuable for owners of "almost good enough" weeks now, they will be just as valuable for all owners now, because they results in a lower cost for those weeks.

Thirdly are those last minute weeks.  Maybe weeks owners will at last have the same benefits that points owners have - the ability to use smaller numbers of credits for those last minute reservations.  Will they simply set a single cost (maybe 5 points) for all last-minute inventory, or will they base it on a percentage of the "full price?"  And is 5 points the minimum RCI will award for any deposit, or will a week with a value of 10 points deposited a full year out only get 3 points if deposited really late?  If there is no real change to the trading power, just "publication of the numbers" I would think the cost of last minute weeks would be the same as the minimum given for all last-minute deposits.  It should be interesting to see how this all works.


----------



## MichaelColey

Mel said:


> Maybe weeks owners will at last have the same benefits that points owners have - the ability to use smaller numbers of credits for those last minute reservations.


Actually, I think it's weeks owners who have the benefit (currently). Trading value totally goes away at 45 days, so the bluest week can pick up anything. With the points system, points reservations still cost the full amount within 45 days. The 9k reservations raid the weeks inventory, so it's kind of a crossover between the two.

It's all still a guess until it rolls out, but I suspect that they'll allow weeks members to get 45 day trades for 5 points. Look at it from their perspective and consider a good trader (let's say 40 points) that uses their week to exchange for 8 last minute weeks. It pulls 8 weeks out of inventory, but they were weeks that probably would have gone unused anyway. Plus, RCI gets 8 exchange fees ($1432!) instead of just one.


----------



## MichaelColey

Mel said:


> We should also not that RCI has tated that Trading Power will still be determined the same way, suggesting that the "formula" that certain people want published is not changing at all.


True (and they've stated this from the start), but what they *aren't* saying is that the trading value will be used in the same way.  Currently, it appears that there are trading power "bands" and you can exchange for anything within your band or any lesser bands.  This allows for the possibility of a slight trade up.  It's not clear that this will continue.  In fact, it seems likely that it won't.  Part of it will depend on how granular they make the visible trading powers.


----------



## Rene McDaniel

Mel said:


> .
> Then there's the issue of bulk banking.



Dave599 & Bourne,

I am also wondering how the new RCI rollout will affect our ability to exchange into prime inventory such as Manhattan Club, DVC, Wyndham, and HGVC.  Currently, when those resorts do bulk bankings, the number of deposits flooding into the system lowers the trade power of those deposited weeks, allowing those of us with middle-of-the-road traders to exchange in.

Would these resorts become harder to exchange into in the new system?  It seems like plenty of Tuggers still exchange into these resorts now, via points.  So, not being a points person I'm a little confused.

For example, if summer Manhattan Club 1 bedrooms receive 50 points, no matter whether the resort deposited 2 weeks or 200 weeks, each deposit would be worth 50 points.  If you trying to trade in, you would need 50 points to get that exchange, right?  So would there be no affect or trade power loss from "bulk space bankings" that we have all benefited from in the past?

If this the case, then most people might need at least 2 deposits to make a peak season Manhattan Club or DVC trade under the new system?   

-- Rene


----------



## Tommart

MichaelColey said:


> Actually, I think it's weeks owners who have the benefit (currently). Trading value totally goes away at 45 days, so the bluest week can pick up anything....
> 
> It's all still a guess until it rolls out, but I suspect that they'll allow weeks members to get 45 day trades for 5 points.....



I agree with your 5 credit example.

In your example, one will have the choice of paying $169 plus 5 credits, or just renting for $269 as a Last Call Vacation.  

RCI can't charge much more than 5 credits, or members will just pay $100 more for a Last Call vacation with no credit charge.  This assumes that RCI doesn't raise the prices of Last Call vacations.

Having transparency is great, but the real change is only charging the actual value of the exchanged unit and allowing "change back."  This is much better, fairer, complex, and interesting than charging one week for one week.


----------



## Mel

MichaelColey said:


> Actually, I think it's weeks owners who have the benefit (currently). Trading value totally goes away at 45 days, so the bluest week can pick up anything. With the points system, points reservations still cost the full amount within 45 days. The 9k reservations raid the weeks inventory, so it's kind of a crossover between the two.


I was thinking in terms of the RCI weeks resorts, where Points owners have the benefit right now - where Weeks owners still have to give up the full value of whatever week they have on deposit.  Now we will potentially have the same advantage as weeks owners regarding those resorts.

But you are right about the RCI Points resorts - Points members are not allowed to reserve at those resorts for the reduced rate.  If they still have to pay the full points value, while we get the last-minute cost of 5 points (or whatever RCI chooses), points members are going to be upset.  Perhaps they will create a straight conversion chart to deal both with crossover trades will allow its use in both directions - PFD for points members who want to use their weeks there, and for points members wanting weeks at non-points resorts.  

The question still is, how do they handle late reservations at points affiliates.  If they allow points members reduced cost that will drive the demand for those weeks up from both sets of members.  



Tommart said:


> I agree with your 5 credit example.
> 
> In your example, one will have the choice of paying $169 plus 5 credits, or just renting for $269 as a Last Call Vacation.
> 
> RCI can't charge much more than 5 credits, or members will just pay $100 more for a Last Call vacation with no credit charge.  This assumes that RCI doesn't raise the prices of Last Call vacations.
> 
> Having transparency is great, but the real change is only charging the actual value of the exchanged unit and allowing "change back."  This is much better, fairer, complex, and interesting than charging one week for one week.


I suspect they will will increase the cost of last call rentals.  If the difference is greater, more people will use those 5 points, which will eliminate those 5 points from the exchange system.

This also begs the question about travel insurance, since they changed it last year to allow for ANY cancellation.  You spent 25 credits for your exchange, and bought cancellation insurance.  A similar week is now available for 5 credits.  It would be worth the cost of the insurance to be able to "recover" those extra 20 credits.  It might even be worth doing for an extra exchange fee without the insurance, if you can get your full 25 back on the cancelled exchange and use 5 for a new reservation!


----------



## Dave599

Mel said:


> This also begs the question about travel insurance, since they changed it last year to allow for ANY cancellation.  You spent 25 credits for your exchange, and bought cancellation insurance.  A similar week is now available for 5 credits.  It would be worth the cost of the insurance to be able to "recover" those extra 20 credits.  It might even be worth doing for an extra exchange fee without the insurance, if you can get your full 25 back on the cancelled exchange and use 5 for a new reservation!



This can be done, however you would have to be very careful and watch the check in date of your banked week, if you were doing this without insurance. Remember if you cancel without insurance your trading power gets recalculated as if you banked on the day you canceled  using your example you have a 25 you book a 25 it becomes available 2 weeks out you cancel (without insurance) your week gets recalculated ie 25 < 14 days get 40% = 10 so you only get 10 back what if its "On Sale" but for 12,  your out of luck.........with insurance its not an issue without it you would have to be very very careful........

Dave


----------



## Mel

Dave599 said:


> This can be done, however you would have to be very careful and watch the check in date of your banked week, if you were doing this without insurance. Remember if you cancel without insurance your trading power gets recalculated as if you banked on the day you canceled  using your example you have a 25 you book a 25 it becomes available 2 weeks out you cancel (without insurance) your week gets recalculated ie 25 < 14 days get 40% = 10 so you only get 10 back what if its "On Sale" but for 12,  your out of luck.........with insurance its not an issue without it you would have to be very very careful........


But does it get recalculated based on the use date of YOUR deposit, or on the use date of what you're puting back in?

If you use your 2012 week to secure and exchange in 2011, and then cancel it a year before your own use-date, do you lose trade power or not?  I suspect they will have to institute a new cancellation policy more like what they have in points - cancel more than x weeks before use, get 100% of your credits back, before y weeks out, get 50% back...or buy the insurance to pretect your 100%


----------



## MichaelColey

No, you're right.  If you exchanged a 2012 week and you put it back at least 9 (or 12?) months before the use date, you should still get full trading power back, even without protection.  Of course with protection, you'll get the exchange fee and original trading power back, even if it's closer in.

Good point about them needing to update the cancellation policy and protection.

Michael





Mel said:


> But does it get recalculated based on the use date of YOUR deposit, or on the use date of what you're puting back in?
> 
> If you use your 2012 week to secure and exchange in 2011, and then cancel it a year before your own use-date, do you lose trade power or not? I suspect they will have to institute a new cancellation policy more like what they have in points - cancel more than x weeks before use, get 100% of your credits back, before y weeks out, get 50% back...or buy the insurance to pretect your 100%


----------



## bnoble

I vaguely recall reading that the recalculation is based on the use date of the *exchange*, not the original deposit.  This could have been entirely wrong, but it would be a shame to find out the hard way.


----------



## Mjpierce

*RCI changes, when?*

Hello everyone,

Does anyone have an educated guess as to when RCI's new weeks trading rules/system is going to go into effect?  I was trying to find information on this in the loooong running thread below, but any estimates seem to be few and far between.

Thanks, 
Michael


----------



## Tommart

*Mid-November*

RCI told me "soon", but said they were not at liberty to give a date.

Several TUG members have stated that the RCI Weeks website will be closed November 12-14, and the new system will likely be in operation November 15.

It looks like mid-November.


----------



## timeos2

Mjpierce said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> Does anyone have an educated guess as to when RCI's new weeks trading rules/system is going to go into effect?  I was trying to find information on this in the loooong running thread below, but any estimates seem to be few and far between.
> 
> Thanks,
> Michael



RCI has repeatedly stated it will be "November" but I have yet to see a date such as November 14, 2010 or 11/2/10.  Why the mystery of the implementation date after all this time is anyone's guess. So what we have now is November.


----------



## Texasbelle

Yes, Michael I'm thinking that some of the trades I have made in the past for areas with lots of availability will require more credits than my timeshare will be given.  The only thing certain in life is change, so change we will.  I have noted that you are having a lot of enjoyment from your ownerships and hope this continues.


----------



## Dave599

Mel said:


> But does it get recalculated based on the use date of YOUR deposit, or on the use date of what you're puting back in?
> 
> If you use your 2012 week to secure and exchange in 2011, and then cancel it a year before your own use-date, do you lose trade power or not?  I suspect they will have to institute a new cancellation policy more like what they have in points - cancel more than x weeks before use, get 100% of your credits back, before y weeks out, get 50% back...or buy the insurance to pretect your 100%



It is based on the check in date of the unit you banked not on what you booked and of course if you cancel still more then 9 months from your banked weeks check in you would still get it all back its when you cancel LESS then 9 months from your banked weeks check in that you run into the loss. This has NOTHING to do with what you booked only what you banked.   

Dave


----------



## Dave599

bnoble said:


> I vaguely recall reading that the recalculation is based on the use date of the *exchange*, not the original deposit.  This could have been entirely wrong, but it would be a shame to find out the hard way.



Its based on the check in date of what you banked it has nothing to do with what you exchange into.  

Dave


----------



## l2trade

*RCI Weeks = Death of the 2BD lockoff exchange?*

Based on the way RCI rates the parts of a 2 bedroom lockoff as far, far greater than the whole, there will be a more transparent incentive for owners to deposit these units in pieces (especially when one considers the ability to recombine deposits for another 'small' fee and then get a significantly higher trade value, far more than you would have gotten otherwise by depositing whole.

I've actually seen preliminary trade value numbers from RCI for a handful of well known resorts.  Based on these numbers, I cannot imagine anyone depositing those weeks without splitting them first.  I expect that bulk bankings of all 2BD lockoffs as 1 bedrooms and studios instead will become the new industry standard.  If you want to exchange *into* a two bedroom lockoff at most resorts, you will now likely need to exchange twice and call the resort to recombine the two reservations for your visit.  The key benefit for RCI here is more exchanges, which equals more revenue.  Timeshare companies will 'educate' owners on why they are depositing their ownerships with RCI separately in that way.  More to come...


----------



## Carolinian

Of course, when RCI does change the trading power, they don't tell you the truth.  They claim they haven't changed anything.  So why should we believe this claim when lying about such things is just a broken record for RCI.

And an exact number system is going to be a lot more aggravating for those who only own one week than it is for those with multiple weeks.  Extra points and points back are a lot easier to absorb for multiple week owners.  Those with one EOY week are going to be the most aggravated, I suspect.





Tommart said:


> Texas Belle,
> 
> This has been discussed a lot.  See "RCI Weeks to offer value transparency."
> 
> Most of us think that this is a good change.
> 
> RCI claims they are not changing the way they credit weeks, they are just showing people what the credit is.
> 
> However, there are desirable changes.  If you trade for a lesser unit, you get "change back."  If you want to trade for something better than what you have, you can use the change back credits or combine weeks.  And we believe that you will know the value of your week, before you deposit.
> 
> Also, when you buy a timeshare, you will know it's trading value (credit) before you purchase.
> 
> However, I believe that over time knowing trading value will make low value weeks even lower, and high value weeks even higher.
> 
> Tom


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


> True (and they've stated this from the start), but what they *aren't* saying is that the trading value will be used in the same way.  Currently, it appears that there are trading power "bands" and you can exchange for anything within your band or any lesser bands.  This allows for the possibility of a slight trade up.  It's not clear that this will continue.  In fact, it seems likely that it won't.  Part of it will depend on how granular they make the visible trading powers.



What this means is that for a trade that is essentially like for like but the week you want costs a slight number of extra points, you will have to borrow those from another week and thus commit that one to RCI, too, or buy extras from RCI itself.  This is what I find to be one of the biggest aggravations of an exact number system.


----------



## Carolinian

Most are just likely keeping their fingers crossed that RCI doesn't slam their resort / resort area / week with an unfair value.  The time that people will get upset is when they seeing they have been hosed on value.





timeos2 said:


> My educated guess is that based on the various threads about this subject is that the "transparency" you want so badly just isn't all that important to the vast majority of RCI members. They do want the ability to know what their week is worth and what the week(s) they want to trade into are valued at.  If that is the case then RCI is making a positive move and most members seem to agree.
> 
> I don't think there is anything RCI could do that would bring you back to their side now.  The timeshare world has changed, things have changed at RCI (for better or worse - there is some of both for certain) and even if the so-called "moles" that you like to base most all your assertions  on were in fact correct those things happened 4-5 or more years ago. It's not the same world or RCI as even that small step back in time represents and it sure isn't the world of RCI when it was first founded.  Today we have to deal with what we have and not try to go back to things that weren't all that good, but hold nostalgic appeal looked back on with a bit of rose colored lenses.


----------



## Carolinian

They don't need to be driven out of business, just driven to stop some of the customer ripoffs they engage in like the rentals of exchange deposits to non-members, something that you, incidentally, support.

The best response is not to go along with the latest downgrade of RCI's exchange operation, which has had way too many downgrades already.  The best response is to find another trading system that can be trusted.  For me that is DAE and SFX for now, perhaps adding HTSE at some point.  In spite of RCI's warts, I had been giving them one week at a time, and lately one of my better weeks, but no more.  I will still do their cheap rentals as long as my membership lasts.





Mel said:


> No matter what RCI does, you won't be happy until they are driven out of business.
> 
> You want it granular, but if it's too granular, people will lose the ability to trade up.  So you don't really want it granular.  But when you hear they might have anticipated that need, you're still not happy.
> 
> Rather than lament that fact the the system is changing, shouldn't we try to see how we can make the new system work for the members?  RCI is changing the system, and we can choose to learn how to benefit from the new system, or we can leave RCI.  Your choice to leave is fine, but why don't you allow the rest of us to at least see if the new system is worth staying?
> 
> You paint RCI as a huge evil corporation out to take our weeks from us, with little or no compensation.  The only way that will happen is if we willingly give them our weeks over and over.  If you had your way, RCI would be legislated out of existence.  Theirs may not be a perfect exchange systems, but neither are any of the others.   We are each free to choose whichever one suits our own needs.  I don't see the smaller companies suiting my needs because they don't have the volume.   They also don't publish the complete details of how their systems work.  You like DAE, and that's great for you, but I don't see how thay treat peak week owners any more fairly than RCI.  If you deposit with they you stand in line behind everyone else who placed a request before you, so the only way to get to the front of the line for the best weeks is to requests them as far ahead as possible  You want that week in Maui, you had better deposit something 2 years ahead of when you want to go, and use that to request - but that means paying for that vacation 2 years ahead, and knowing your vacation schedule that far ahead.  What percentage of RCI members really plan that far out?


----------



## Carolinian

That ''maybe'' on the last minute trades is a huge issue for the financial viability of many resorts.  The owners of those weeks who bought to trade did so explicitly for the last minute exchanges in many instances.  This was heavily promoted by both developers and RCI itself.  In the last few years, RCI has deleted its references to the 45 window trades in its US materials and in its European directory has shifted to promoting cheap rentals of those weeks.  The 45 day window has taken a huge hit as a result of 1) RCI renting this inventory to the general public, and 2) RCI making this last minute Weeks inventory availible to Points members for 9K points.  As this inventory has been degraded by RCI, resorts have been seeing the owners of this offseason time who bought it to trade bail out.  RCI's changes in this area can be what leads to the final stampede for the exits for those who still own to trade the offseason weeks.





Mel said:


> To expand upon your thoughs on ongoing searches:
> 
> If we have one week worth 42 points, and another worth 16, will we have the option of setting the number of points we can use for that ongoing search, or will we be restricted to a choice of 16 or 42 (one of our weeks), and possibly 58 (the two weeks combined).
> 
> Then there's the issue of bulk banking.
> 
> Right now if a resort bulk banks, I'm assuming what happens is the supply drives down the credits for the newest banked weeks.  As exchanges are made, and the supply diminishes, the credits required increases back to where it was before.
> 
> While the timing of bulk bankings are valuable for owners of "almost good enough" weeks now, they will be just as valuable for all owners now, because they results in a lower cost for those weeks.
> 
> Thirdly are those last minute weeks.  Maybe weeks owners will at last have the same benefits that points owners have - the ability to use smaller numbers of credits for those last minute reservations.  Will they simply set a single cost (maybe 5 points) for all last-minute inventory, or will they base it on a percentage of the "full price?"  And is 5 points the minimum RCI will award for any deposit, or will a week with a value of 10 points deposited a full year out only get 3 points if deposited really late?  If there is no real change to the trading power, just "publication of the numbers" I would think the cost of last minute weeks would be the same as the minimum given for all last-minute deposits.  It should be interesting to see how this all works.


----------



## MichaelColey

l2trade said:


> Based on the way RCI rates the parts of a 2 bedroom lockoff as far, far greater than the whole, there will be a more transparent incentive for owners to deposit these units in pieces (especially when one considers the ability to recombine deposits for another 'small' fee and then get a significantly higher trade value, far more than you would have gotten otherwise by depositing whole.


I totally agree.  Lockoffs will become much harder to find.  Right now, many people don't realize that they're worth more separately.  (That was one of my first questions here on TUG.)  With transparent trading power, it'll be much more obvious.



Carolinian said:


> Most are just likely keeping their fingers crossed that RCI doesn't slam their resort / resort area / week with an unfair value. The time that people will get upset is when they seeing they have been hosed on value.


Are you basing that on the assumption that they're lying about not changing trading powers?  I don't think the trading powers are going to be a surprise to anyone.  Those who have had a hard time finding good trades are going to see a number that indicates that they have a poor trader.  Those who have had tiger traders will see a high number.  They're just adding transparency.



Carolinian said:


> In the last few years, RCI has deleted its references to the 45 window trades in its US materials and in its European directory has shifted to promoting cheap rentals of those weeks. The 45 day window has taken a huge hit as a result of 1) RCI renting this inventory to the general public, and 2) RCI making this last minute Weeks inventory availible to Points members for 9K points.


They're trying to dump the weeks every way they can, but there's still a ton of it out there.  The 3-45 day window right now is 10/27 - 12/8, and I see 10,334 units at 1451 resorts.  Just from 10/27 - 11/2 (the next 7 days), I see 1500 units at 702 resorts.  34 of those are 2BR or 3BR units in US-based Gold Crown resorts.

If RCI cuts off easy trading within 45 days, they're going to have 1000+ units (that could have earned an exchange fee) expire worthless every week.  I just don't see them doing that.


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> Of course, when RCI does change the trading power, they don't tell you the truth. They claim they haven't changed anything. So why should we believe this claim when lying about such things is just a broken record for RCI.


Once they become transparent, they won't be able to hide any future changes in trading power.


----------



## WinniWoman

*Want weeks not points!*

 If I wanted points, I would have purchased points! I stayed with weeks because of the SIMPLICITY of it. I do not want to use partial weeks and credits and all this nonsense! I won't give up 2 weeks in a beautiful unit, even if it is off-season, just to get one in a strong season somewhere else. In any event, no matter what RCI does, it will be for the betterment of RCI, not it's members! I just hope I will be able to trade my blue and white weeks to go back into my home resort during the pink weeks. (I have always been able to do that and even been able to upgrade from 2 bedrooms to 3). Then, I'll be fine because I just rent if I want to go somewhere else.


----------



## timeos2

*It's always been points but some never wanted to believe that*



mpumilia said:


> If I wanted points, I would have purchased points! I stayed with weeks because of the SIMPLICITY of it. I do not want to use partial weeks and credits and all this nonsense! I won't give up 2 weeks in a beautiful unit, even if it is off-season, just to get one in a strong season somewhere else. In any event, no matter what RCI does, it will be for the betterment of RCI, not it's members! I just hope I will be able to trade my blue and white weeks to go back into my home resort during the pink weeks. (I have always been able to do that and even been able to upgrade from 2 bedrooms to 3). Then, I'll be fine because I just rent if I want to go somewhere else.



But you apparently fail to understand that this magic value - credits, points, trade power, whatever you want to call it - has ALWAYS been there & applied to your week(s).  The only change is now you will know if you have enough trade power to get what you want or not.  Isn't that better than sitting & waiting foir a trade that isn't going to happen?  It's about being more informed vs playing a guessing game.  

You can still keep it very simple. Before you request your trade look at the requested resort. If it is worth the same as your or less you got it - you don't have to worry about change back if you just want to ignore it. If it requires more then you won't get the trade and you can mve on to a new request. Still very simple and really no change from today except you know better why the trade wasn't made.


----------



## Bourne

Another tidbit from the land of the evil empire. Thou shalth not combine two weeks trading power credits to get a super week. Only credit left from a trade can be applied.

Which makes sense. The key driver for this change is more revenue. And yes, the 45 day credit example is one of the ways the weeks system could be manipulated. Now points and weeks members can get shot at cheap last minute inventory.


----------



## timeos2

Bourne said:


> Another tidbit from the land of the evil empire. Thou shalth not combine two weeks trading power credits to get a super week. Only credit left from a trade can be applied.
> 
> Which makes sense. The key driver for this change is more revenue. And yes, the 45 day credit example is one of the ways the weeks system could be manipulated. Now points and weeks members can get shot at cheap last minute inventory.




Where did you come up with this? The official stuff specifically mentions using two (or more) weeks combined to get needed credits for a trade.


----------



## MichaelColey

Bourne said:


> Another tidbit from the land of the evil empire. Thou shalth not combine two weeks trading power credits to get a super week. Only credit left from a trade can be applied.


Huh?


timeos2 said:


> Where did you come up with this? The official stuff specifically mentions using two (or more) weeks combined to get needed credits for a trade.


Exactly. Here's the post:


> Combine Deposited Weeks
> 
> If you want to trade up to an Exchange with a trading power higher than that of any of your Deposits, you can combine two or more of your weeks and their trading power, giving you access to vacations that you might not have been able to book in the past.


----------



## eal

There was an RCI rep at the Pacific Shores AGM that I attended yesterday, and he said November 15.


----------



## MICP0528

*November 1st*

I had some technical problem recently with my account. The tech told me beginning Nov. 1st RCI is starting a new program. She then  backtracked and said "Oh I shouldn't have said that" In reality who knows when!


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


> Once they become transparent, they won't be able to hide any future changes in trading power.



But they will be able to continue to hide the insider deals with developers to set inflated numbers, and having published numbers creates an incentive for that in the Weeks program that never existed before.


----------



## WinniWoman

*Combining red and white weeks*

I remember a number of years ago, we wanted to go to Hawaii in the summer. Per RCI's suggestion, we deposited our red and our white week in exchange for 2 consecutive weeks in Hawaii at 2 different resorts (2 different islands - The Big Island and Kauai) - one a silver crown and one a gold crown. According to them, the red week upped the power of the white week and they were able to make it happen.


----------



## MichaelColey

Your argument makes no sense.  If the numbers are visible, how can they hide it?  It looks like your hatred of all things RCI is clouding your viewpoints.


----------



## Carolinian

And how in the world do you expect the fact that ONLY the resulting numbers are public, not the formula or data behind those numbers to prevent deals between RCI and develpers for numbers they do not deserve?  As long as the process for setting the numbers is hidden, there is no way to know how they were arrived at.  Your argument makes no sense.  Your blind loyalty to RCI is clouding your viewpoints.




MichaelColey said:


> Your argument makes no sense.  If the numbers are visible, how can they hide it?  It looks like your hatred of all things RCI is clouding your viewpoints.


----------



## Carolinian

There are times of the year that dumping last minute weeks makes sense, essentially those times that the weeks would have low value anyway.  There are other times of the year, that they are highly sought after, and it is the renting of these, or shifting them to Points members, that has degraded the exchange pool for those who have played the 45 day window in the past.

The window right now is one of those less desirable times most places.




MichaelColey said:


> They're trying to dump the weeks every way they can, but there's still a ton of it out there.  The 3-45 day window right now is 10/27 - 12/8, and I see 10,334 units at 1451 resorts.  Just from 10/27 - 11/2 (the next 7 days), I see 1500 units at 702 resorts.  34 of those are 2BR or 3BR units in US-based Gold Crown resorts.
> 
> If RCI cuts off easy trading within 45 days, they're going to have 1000+ units (that could have earned an exchange fee) expire worthless every week.  I just don't see them doing that.


----------



## Carolinian

But you still got 2 for 2, a much better deal than 1 for 2.



mpumilia said:


> I remember a number of years ago, we wanted to go to Hawaii in the summer. Per RCI's suggestion, we deposited our red and our white week in exchange for 2 consecutive weeks in Hawaii at 2 different resorts (2 different islands - The Big Island and Kauai) - one a silver crown and one a gold crown. According to them, the red week upped the power of the white week and they were able to make it happen.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Don't Confuse Us With Facts.  Our Minds Are Made Up.*




Carolinian said:


> Your blind loyalty to RCI is clouding your viewpoints.





MichaelColey said:


> It looks like your hatred of all things RCI is clouding your viewpoints.


Clearly there are only 2 choices . . . 

(1)  _RCI Can Do No Wrong._ 

(2)  _Blind Hatred Of All Things RCI._ 

It's been that way for a _l-o-n-g_ time. 

So it goes. 

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


----------



## Mel

As has been said over and over - if they don't deserve the numbers, people won't want to exchange in.

Let them set a high starting number, and let the weeks from those resorts stagnate in the spacebank, and be reduced to firesale prices.  If demand is already low, do you honestly think that raising the "price" to exchange in is going the drive demand any higher?

Yes, there are some gullible people who this that anything that costs more must be better - fine, let them exchange into sub-par resorts that cost too much.  It leaves the better, but less expensive weeks for those that actually care.

Steve - why isit that you can't accept that something might actually be good for exchangers?  Why not accept that this change is happening, and help figure out how we can all benefit from the changes?


----------



## rickandcindy23

MichaelColey said:


> Your argument makes no sense.  If the numbers are visible, how can they hide it?  It looks like your hatred of all things RCI is clouding your viewpoints.



After 26-27 years of dealing with RCI, I can tell you that no change is going to be good for RCI's exchange customers.  

As I said before, my studio units in Myrtle Beach are tigers now, but I don't expect things to stay that way.  Suddenly the value of that week will decrease, because they will "re-evaluate" exchange power, and I will be disappointed in the result.  

RCI is going to take two weeks for one, a simple way to double their rental inventory.  Not nearly the deal the head salesman at Jungle Cruise is offering: "He will give two heads for just one of yours...." 

I am worried.  Supposedly no change in trade power, but that is what they said after 5/30/2009, when they drastically reduced the trading power to all five of my deposited weeks, then denied the entire fiasco.  

Fortunately, the trading power is almost back to the way it was for some of my weeks.  I can only say I am concerned for the future of RCI trades and hope John is right when he says trading power won't be affected.  We will see.


----------



## Carolinian

*Too different theories from two different purported insiders*

If we still had Bootleg, our old-time TUG resident RCI insider, his information would have instant credibility, but he has unfortunately left us.  Similarly with Anon over at TimeShareTalk, whose RCI bonafides were verified by the site owner (who asked Anon some very specific questions about his own RCI account that only someone with access to RCI computers could answer and Anon came back with all the right answers).  Now we have two purported RCI insiders on TUG providing info whom we do not have this history with, and they give conflicting accounts.

On one very critical issue, one version is that trading will be by exact number, and the other that trading will still be within a band or a ''range'' as it was described in the past.  The latter, while far from curing all the flaws in the new RCI exchange regime, would make it at least far more palatable than the first scenario.  Using exact numbers would certainly mean that some trades that most can get now they would not be able to get under the new regime, which would be a loss of trade power.


----------



## Carolinian

The solution is to use a different exchange company.  Most exchange companies are still offering clean week for week trades.



mpumilia said:


> If I wanted points, I would have purchased points! I stayed with weeks because of the SIMPLICITY of it. I do not want to use partial weeks and credits and all this nonsense! I won't give up 2 weeks in a beautiful unit, even if it is off-season, just to get one in a strong season somewhere else. In any event, no matter what RCI does, it will be for the betterment of RCI, not it's members! I just hope I will be able to trade my blue and white weeks to go back into my home resort during the pink weeks. (I have always been able to do that and even been able to upgrade from 2 bedrooms to 3). Then, I'll be fine because I just rent if I want to go somewhere else.


----------



## Carolinian

If RCI were simply an exchange company, as they once were, they would undoubtedly be forced to adjust numbers to market.  But, once again, the problem is now that RCI is as they describe themselves a ''rental and exchange company'' and that makes the dynamics very different.  Even in the old scenario, they would likely to willing to allow some fudged numbers as a loss leader to attract some developers, from whom they would expect to get lots of new members.  The situation is not nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be.

When RCI has done a whole lot of things that have NOT been good for members, like their rentals to the general public, there is simply no good reason to think that this is any different.  Their use of the Orwellian corporate-speak term ''enhancements'' which in the real world usually means the exact opposite certainly is not something that gives much confidence, either!




Mel said:


> As has been said over and over - if they don't deserve the numbers, people won't want to exchange in.
> 
> Let them set a high starting number, and let the weeks from those resorts stagnate in the spacebank, and be reduced to firesale prices.  If demand is already low, do you honestly think that raising the "price" to exchange in is going the drive demand any higher?
> 
> Yes, there are some gullible people who this that anything that costs more must be better - fine, let them exchange into sub-par resorts that cost too much.  It leaves the better, but less expensive weeks for those that actually care.
> 
> Steve - why isit that you can't accept that something might actually be good for exchangers?  Why not accept that this change is happening, and help figure out how we can all benefit from the changes?


----------



## Carolinian

Speaking of the May 2009 events which RCI swore did not change trading power, but Tuggers and other astute timesharers could easily see that in fact it did, here is a good thread from TS4MS:

http://www.timeshareforums.com/forums/rci/93191-how-big-yours-34.html#post409155

How can anyone not completely gullible take anything RCI says about trading power at face value after events like these?

So-called ''Black Sunday'' on SA trading is another similar situation.



rickandcindy23 said:


> After 26-27 years of dealing with RCI, I can tell you that no change is going to be good for RCI's exchange customers.
> 
> As I said before, my studio units in Myrtle Beach are tigers now, but I don't expect things to stay that way.  Suddenly the value of that week will decrease, because they will "re-evaluate" exchange power, and I will be disappointed in the result.
> 
> RCI is going to take two weeks for one, a simple way to double their rental inventory.  Not nearly the deal the head salesman at Jungle Cruise is offering: "He will give two heads for just one of yours...."
> 
> I am worried.  Supposedly no change in trade power, but that is what they said after 5/30/2009, when they drastically reduced the trading power to all five of my deposited weeks, then denied the entire fiasco.
> 
> Fortunately, the trading power is almost back to the way it was for some of my weeks.  I can only say I am concerned for the future of RCI trades and hope John is right when he says trading power won't be affected.  We will see.


----------



## Mel

Bourne said:


> Another tidbit from the land of the evil empire. Thou shalth not combine two weeks trading power credits to get a super week. Only credit left from a trade can be applied.
> 
> Which makes sense. The key driver for this change is more revenue. And yes, the 45 day credit example is one of the ways the weeks system could be manipulated. Now points and weeks members can get shot at cheap last minute inventory.


I seriously doubt this, because RCI published otherwise (see Michael's Quote) in Endless Vacation magazine.  I can't see them publishing something like that to all the members, and then not doing it.

As for the lock-off units, we all know that historically, they have been more valueable as independent units.  But that could change (or could have already).

Have they been more valuable only in the sense that the combined units didn't have enough of a boost over the larger of the 2 sides to make a big difference?  If the combined unit is worth 40 credits, and the individual parts 15 and 25, it makes a big difference if RCI doesn't have much inventory in the 30-40 credit range.  Also, of the 15 and 25 credit units are deposited a year out, that 25 may still be good enough to exchange into a "40" at 6 months when its value is reduced low enough

We also don't know if RCI balanced those units out in the past 6 months or so.  If they did, we might not yet see the effect.  Such a change could also account for some of the major changes people saw in their trade power - did the trade power of their weeks change, or did the trade power required for other weeks change?  I can see it being to RCI's advantage to have more deposits (resulting in more exchange fees), 

One more thing we will have to watch for when the system goes live.  Anyone have a lockoff they're thinking of depositing in late November?


----------



## Tommart

*Deposited Both Sides of a Locked-Unit*



Mel said:


> .....
> 
> As for the lock-off units, we all know that historically, they have been more valueable as independent units.  But that could change (or could have already).
> 
> Have they been more valuable only in the sense that the combined units didn't have enough of a boost over the larger of the 2 sides to make a big difference?  If the combined unit is worth 40 credits, and the individual parts 15 and 25, it makes a big difference if RCI doesn't have much inventory in the 30-40 credit range.  Also, of the 15 and 25 credit units are deposited a year out, that 25 may still be good enough to exchange into a "40" at 6 months when its value is reduced low enough
> 
> We also don't know if RCI balanced those units out in the past 6 months or so.  If they did, we might not yet see the effect.  Such a change could also account for some of the major changes people saw in their trade power - did the trade power of their weeks change, or did the trade power required for other weeks change?  I can see it being to RCI's advantage to have more deposits (resulting in more exchange fees),
> 
> One more thing we will have to watch for when the system goes live.  Anyone have a lockoff they're thinking of depositing in late November?



Well, I own locked-units and I called RCI before depositing them a week ago and I asked if I should wait until after the change in RCI weeks before I made my deposit.

She claimed that there will be no change in the way units are rated.  Units have always been given a numerical rating.  RCI just would not tell members what the rating was.  In fact, I would hurt my score if I delayed because I get extra credits for deposit up to 9 months prior to check-in. 

So I deposited them as two one-bedrooms and each seems to have similar trading power as in the past.  Each has available 104K weeks world-wide.  I'll wonder if this will change after the new system is implemented.

Note that the RCI Points system grid for the SE US for Red Gold-Crown weeks is 45,500 points for a one-bedroom and 60,500 for a two-bedroom.  I would expect a similar ratio with the RCI Weeks Program ratings.  

And I do not believe that if I would have only deposited one-bedroom I would receive a credit less than a non-locked one-bedroom.

Tom


----------



## Carolinian

To be safe, I would print off what you can trade them for now, and compare it after the change.  That is the best way to tell if they have monkeyed with the numbers.  For those of you who want to beleive RCI's claims, I suggest you follow the words of a former president ''Trust, but verify''




Tommart said:


> Well, I own locked-units and I called RCI before depositing them a week ago and I asked if I should wait until after the change in RCI weeks before I made my deposit.
> 
> She claimed that there will be no change in the way units are rated.  Units have always been given a numerical rating.  RCI just would not tell members what the rating was.  In fact, I would hurt my score because I get extra credits for deposit up to 9 months prior to check-in.
> 
> So I deposited them as two one-bedrooms and each seems to have similar trading power as in the past.  Each has available 104K weeks world-wide.  I'll wonder if this will change after the new system is implemented.
> 
> Note that the RCI Points system grid for the SE US for Red Gold-Crown weeks is 45,500 points for a one-bedroom and 60,500 for a two-bedroom.  I would expect a similar ratio with the RCI Weeks Program ratings.
> 
> Tom


----------



## Mel

rickandcindy23 said:


> After 26-27 years of dealing with RCI, I can tell you that no change is going to be good for RCI's exchange customers.
> 
> As I said before, my studio units in Myrtle Beach are tigers now, but I don't expect things to stay that way.  Suddenly the value of that week will decrease, because they will "re-evaluate" exchange power, and I will be disappointed in the result.
> 
> RCI is going to take two weeks for one, a simple way to double their rental inventory.  Not nearly the deal the head salesman at Jungle Cruise is offering: "He will give two heads for just one of yours...."
> 
> I am worried.  Supposedly no change in trade power, but that is what they said after 5/30/2009, when they drastically reduced the trading power to all five of my deposited weeks, then denied the entire fiasco.
> 
> Fortunately, the trading power is almost back to the way it was for some of my weeks.  I can only say I am concerned for the future of RCI trades and hope John is right when he says trading power won't be affected.  We will see.


We have those that want the trading power to be static, and those that want it to be dynamic.  I prefer dynamic, but I also understand that means someone's trading power is going to go down when someone else's goes up.

I suspect what happened in May of 2009 was a major adjustment to the trade power of many units (though not necessarily to the ones where we "saw" the differences).  Looking at one member's deposits isn't going to tell the whole story, nor is looking at the deposits of what amounts to a small percentage of the membership, particularly when that group is self-selected, and does not own a truly borad range of weeks.

Countless times on these boards we've heard arguments about how RCI overvalues or undervalues certain weeks.  But most of those arguments hinge on individual preferences - who prefers location over amenities, who cares more about being on the beach vs across the street, or ski-in vs 2 miles from the slopes (or even the difference between staying onsite as Disney vs a larger unit offsite).

At least under this new system we should have a better sense of the value of our holdings.  If I'm planning to travel overseas, I have to exchange my currency.  Part of my planning includes the comparative cost of everything in the other currency.  The cost of Pertol in England may not have risen, but if the value of the Dollar has dropped, it has in effect risen for me.  Or perhaps the value of the Dollar remains stable vs. Pounds Sterling, but the price of Petrol and everything else has gone up, reducing the value of both.  I don't see this new system as being much different than that.  In essesnce, I use my week to buy a gift certificate to RCI's space bank, to use later.  The prices of everything in that bank may fluctuate, so it behooves me to spend my gift certificate wisely.



Carolinian said:


> If RCI were simply an exchange company, as they once were, they would undoubtedly be forced to adjust numbers to market.  But, once again, the problem is now that RCI is as they describe themselves a ''rental and exchange company'' and that makes the dynamics very different.  Even in the old scenario, they would likely to willing to allow some fudged numbers as a loss leader to attract some developers, from whom they would expect to get lots of new members.  The situation is not nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be.
> 
> When RCI has done a whole lot of things that have NOT been good for members, like their rentals to the general public, there is simply no good reason to think that this is any different.  Their use of the Orwellian corporate-speak term ''enhancements'' which in the real world usually means the exact opposite certainly is not something that gives much confidence, either!


You do not see any of these changes as enhancements, others do.  They are not Orwellian enhancements, they are in fact things members have been asking for, things new TUG members have wished for whenever they have found us - "I wish I knew what my week was really worth" "I wish I knew ahead of time what would be a reasonable expectation for a trade..." Some people will "lose" with this new change, because they will have to relearn how to manipulate the system to their advantage.  So be it.  Some members have always have advantages over others, and I would prefer knowing about those advantages, rather than speculating.  Am I not seeing the Hawaii week I want because it hasn't been deposited, or because I don't have enough trade power?  The answer to that question is likely to impact whether I modify my request, or wait for what I want.


----------



## Bourne

Carolinian said:


> Speaking of the May 2009 events which RCI swore did not change trading power,



That statement is technically true. 

Define trading power. 

Is it an attribute set for the deposited week? If yes, the trading power did not change. 

Is it the end user's ability to access certian weeks vs others? If yes, then trading power did change because more bands were added. For those sitting on lower/higher end of the band, it would have made a difference as it would allow you to see more or see less. 

Then again, bad news is always reported. Because it sells. Its fashionable to "crib". Even in a friendly forum like TUG, when someone strikes gold, they tend to keep quiet about it than let everyone know about it. In my 10 years+ of timesharing and half being on TUG, I have only seen one thread where members laid their "cards out". And even then, it was predominantly the newbies...


----------



## Bourne

To clarify the above statement...

The trading power of the existing deposit did not change. That said, assigning trading power to new deposits is always fluid and moves from week to week. Infact, you may not get the same level each year of the exact same week deposited exact months out because demand and supply is fluid.


----------



## Mel

Bourne, this is exactly the same fear people have had about point systems from the beginning, even though in the end they are no different than using trade power.

Your week is what it is worth - you are given points, credits, or trade value based on that worth.  It should be able to trade back for itself, and similar weeks.  But as new resorts are added to the system, you might not be able to trade directly for them.  That may be because they are newer, and are slightly nicer resorts, or are more posh.  Or it might be because their newness triggers more interest among other exchangers, driving demand up.  Even if they are much like your own resort was the day it opened, the reality is that your resort is older and more "worn."

What you are stating is exactly what I was trying to get at.  We still had the same amount of "money" in our pockets, but the number of items available at that price changed, due to less "rounding."  

If RCI in fact has fewer bands now than there will be in late November, than we can expect some resorts (in the lower portions of the currently existing bands) to be eligible for straight exchange into fewer resorts once the change happens.  If people who are concerned about this track waht is available now, they will be able to look at the results after the change and see if the change makes sense.  (Their week is a 45, and some of the weeks they used to get are now 46 or 47).


----------



## stevedmatt

Mel said:


> Your week is what it is worth - you are given points, credits, or trade value based on that worth.



This brings up some questions for me. Will the trading value they determine be in proportion to the rental price they request in "extra vacations"? What about in the 60-45-30 day window when these rental prices drop significantly, will my one week then be able to pick up 3,4, or 5 of these last minute weeks since no one else seemingly wanted them at "full price"?

This is just a version of points. I am not upset with the concept but I know that RCI wouldn't be doing this to benefit their customers. This, no doubt, will just increase their bottom line.


----------



## bnoble

No one (other than RCI employees who have presumably signed non-disclosure agreements) knows for sure what's going to happen.  There's a lot of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) that surrounds any change.  But, no matter what happens we will quickly figure out how to best take advantage of it.


----------



## Carolinian

Apparently you did not fully read his post.  By creating additional bands, RCI DID, as many Tuggers observed with their own weeks, change trading power. They narrowed the range that members could trade in.  Trading power involves the whole process, the valuation in, the valuation out, and what range of numbers you have access to.  RCI was dishonestly playing a shell game with members by trying to focus on only one aspect of the process.  That is the sort of entity that you trust blindly in its statements on the new system not making any changes.   There's a term for that.  It's called gullibility.  There is an old saying I think that fits this situation.  It is ''fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me''.





Mel said:


> Bourne, this is exactly the same fear people have had about point systems from the beginning, even though in the end they are no different than using trade power.
> 
> Your week is what it is worth - you are given points, credits, or trade value based on that worth.  It should be able to trade back for itself, and similar weeks.  But as new resorts are added to the system, you might not be able to trade directly for them.  That may be because they are newer, and are slightly nicer resorts, or are more posh.  Or it might be because their newness triggers more interest among other exchangers, driving demand up.  Even if they are much like your own resort was the day it opened, the reality is that your resort is older and more "worn."
> 
> What you are stating is exactly what I was trying to get at.  We still had the same amount of "money" in our pockets, but the number of items available at that price changed, due to less "rounding."
> 
> If RCI in fact has fewer bands now than there will be in late November, than we can expect some resorts (in the lower portions of the currently existing bands) to be eligible for straight exchange into fewer resorts once the change happens.  If people who are concerned about this track waht is available now, they will be able to look at the results after the change and see if the change makes sense.  (Their week is a 45, and some of the weeks they used to get are now 46 or 47).


----------



## "Roger"

A little mathematics (sorry) to help clarify what happens when "bands" are added.  Two posts, one for points (actually a double switch, new bands and a switch from weeks to points) and a second one for straight Weeks (where something very different can happen).

Let us start with just two bands (to simplify) with ten people rated at 20 and ten at 10.  Let us also take what some people might consider a terrible scenario (just what you would expect from RCI) where RCI "lowers" half of the people when it creates new bands.  ("Lowers" turns out to be an inappropriate word.) After the new bands are created, there are five people each at the levels 5, 10, 15, and 20.  Now lets look at each of the four new groups:

The people at 5:  They are definitely worse off. Before they could make an even trade to ten resorts, now they can only make an even trade to five.  (The five that are considered comparable to their own resort.)

The people at 10:  They are winners.  They can trade for the same ten resorts that they could before.  They have lost nothing in that regard.  In addition, for five of those resorts, they can trade two for one.  Finally, whereas before, they could not trade for any of the units rated 20, they can now do so.  It would take a year and a half to trade for one of the units rated at 15, two years for a unit at 20.  (Not great, but these trades were simply unavailable to them before.)

The people at 15:  Modest losers.  They can't trade for all the units that they used to even up.  (Actually, what they can't do is "trade up" at the one to one ratio for the units rated 20 as before. There was a reason that they were not maintained at the 20 level - their units are not as good.)  However, now when they trade for a unit at the 10 level, they still have change (extra points) to apply to some future trade.

The people at 20:  Big winners.  They can trade for everything (as before), but now get change whenever they trade down.

Summary -- Dividing into more bands will create winners and losers.  There is no mathematical scenario in which everyone loses.


----------



## "Roger"

Yeah, but what happens when you add bands in a Weeks system.

Now there is real possibility for no winnners (except for RCI).  Do the same split described in the prior post (with half the units being given lower trading value).  Add to that a proviso that no one is allowed to trade up.  

What happens now is that whenever anyone trades down, a unit is left that is too expensive for anyone to afford.  (Suppose, in the extreme, all of the owners of the units rated 20 trade for units rated 15.  Now, no one is left who can afford the units rated 20.)  

In this scenario, RCI can skim off the expensive units and use them for rentals.  That is what the Weeks system does, enable skimming and rentals.

I am not saying that this is what occurs, but, for those who are forever suspicious of RCI and hate rentals, the worst thing that you can do is argue for the continuation of the one-for-one Weeks system.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> Apparently you did not fully read his post.  By creating additional bands, RCI DID, as many Tuggers observed with their own weeks, change trading power. They narrowed the range that members could trade in.  Trading power involves the whole process, the valuation in, the valuation out, and what range of numbers you have access to.  RCI was dishonestly playing a shell game with members by trying to focus on only one aspect of the process.  That is the sort of entity that you trust blindly in its statements on the new system not making any changes.   There's a term for that.  It's called gullibility.  There is an old saying I think that fits this situation.  It is ''fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me''.



I did in fact read the whole thread, and understood what he was saying.  The actual trade power of the weeks in question did not change - her said that it was technically correct that they did not change.  What changed was how those numbers were used.

Assuming RCI assigns trade values in a range from 1 to 1000, and then splits them into 10 equal bands, your 605 week is in a band of all weeks from 601-700, and thus qualifies to trade for anything in that band or lower.  If they then change to 20 bands, your 605 is STILL a 605, but can no longer trade into anything above 650.  If they change to 100 bands, you can no longer trade into anything above 610.  They have not change the trading power, but your ability to trade has been diminished.  From the perspective of someone with a 695, this is a benefit because it reduces the demand on the weeks in the upper half of the 601-700 band,  In essesnce, that 695 became a more powerful trader, though the owner of that week won't necessarily "see" any difference.

It would be no different if RCI kept the bands intact, but increased the trade power of everything by 50 points, shifting the top half of the band into a higher band.  The net effect is you lose the ability to trade into those weeks, though YOUR trade power has not changed.

Since those weeks that were a trade up did in fact have a higher trade power, RCI does not consider them like-for-like trades.  Obviously RCI is tightening their definition of what is like-for-like.  Some of the other exchange companies have similar policies.  You like II, but how many members here are thrilled that they can only place limited requests for 2BR units with their top 1BR week?  Sure, if a 2BR is available they can get it, but if they have to use a search, they are stuck requesting a 1BR, and II makes it difficult for them to refuse that 1BR when it appears.  

If people won't like the way RCI operates, they have other options.  Go ahead and use them, but understand that RCI has a program that works well for some of us, just as II works well for others.  The new system sounds fair to me - for the member who only wants to trade once every 3 years, perhaps RCI isn't what they want anyway.  For the person who trades most years, it should work well.  That slight trade up (the one you saw pre 5/2009 but not after) will have to be balanced with a slight trade down.  Sounds fair to me.  Yes, it means having to bank another week to use a few of its points, but that's just RCI's way of encouraging repeat customers, or loyalty.  If you don't wish to be a loyal customer, then you don't get the benefit of shifting your points to get the trades you want.


----------



## Tommart

*BAnds*

I agree that narrowing bands makes it more difficult to trade for a better unit within the band.  This is to RCI's advantage.

And if RCI abolishes bands under the new approach, it makes it impossible to trade evenly for a unit with a higher rating even if the two units were formerly in the same band.  This is the extreme narrowing of bands.  Each band is one point.

It is unclear whether bands will be abolished under the new system.  But to me, it makes sense to abolish them, and I'm OK with that.  Based on what I know now, I like the increased flexibility that the new approach will bring.  

In the past, I've taken 2-bedrooms, when I only needed one.  I might not do that in the future.  In fact, if my week is worth 600 credits, I might take a 300 point week rather than the 500 point I took in the past.  If I want to exchange for a 800 point week, I'll have that option as well.


----------



## timeos2

Tommart said:


> In the past, I've taken 2-bedrooms, when I only needed one.  I might not do that in the future.  In fact, if my week is worth 600 credits, I might take a 300 point week rather than the 500 point I took in the past.  If I want to exchange for a 800 point week, I'll have that option as well.



This is what occurs in well run points systems as well. It is a big positive as it helps people get good value out rather than taking "all you can eat" just because you can.  The whole system tends to be self leveling when users have to pay the real value for what they take but also get true value for what they give in.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*New Points Lite Seems Like Less Of A Shot In The Dark Than Old RCI Weeks.*




timeos2 said:


> This is what occurs in well run points systems as well. It is a big positive as it helps people get good value out rather than taking "all you can eat" just because you can.


So, it looks like RCI will be rolling out side-by-side points systems -- New Points Lite alongside conventional RCI Points. 

Is that about the size of it ? 

If so, I want to know whether I can use my New Points Lite "change back" for conventional RCI Points PFD, or whether I'll be limited under New Points Lite to using any "change back" that I get only for other New Points Lite exchanges. 

Unless they publish a New Points Lite PFD grid, I can only assume that use of New Points Lite "change back" will be limited to other New Points Lite exchanges.  

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


----------



## Mel

I wouldn't be surprised to see a new conversion grid, or perhaps a conversion factor - each Credit is worth so many points.  Under such a system, they might even allow PFD forlater deposits, because they would already be discounted.

With this new published system, someone could potentially track what RCI puts into the system from outside, and what they remove for rentals, and see how the credits balance.  In fact, this suggests that perhaps RCI isn't really in collusion with certain resorts which seem to be over-rated, but looking out for their own interests.

However they get them, RCI has loads of deposits from resorts in development - not deposited by members, but developer inventory.
Some members want access to those weeks, so RCI injects them into the system, taking other weeks out as a balance.  If RCI gives high credit values to those deposits, they are able to take more out for rentals.  But they do have to be careful, because if they don't give enough credits (and charge themselves more) for those weeks, the owners won't deposit them, and they won't be available to take out for rentals.

The problem I see is that we all want access to some of those new resorts, but maybe not all of them.  How to allow RCI to infuse weeks from the resorts we want without dumping weeks from the resorts we don't want?    I don't know, but I suspect over time the system will correct itself - as they "reward" themselves with high credit values for those weeks, they also have to reward members who own them as well.  As those resorts sell out, RCI will have less incentive to overvalue any of those weeks.

I don't think RCI is in collusion with the developers, I think the developers just happen to benefit for RCI looking out for its own interests.


----------



## Carolinian

Tightening definitions for ''like for like'' is how RCI creates more ''excess'' for them to divert to rentals.  That helps RCI but hurts the members.  I know you consistently defend RCI rentals, but most here feel otherwise.  I am not surprised that RCI's new exchange regime sounds fair to you as I do not recall your ever having found any of RCI's practices unfair.





Mel said:


> I did in fact read the whole thread, and understood what he was saying.  The actual trade power of the weeks in question did not change - her said that it was technically correct that they did not change.  What changed was how those numbers were used.
> 
> Assuming RCI assigns trade values in a range from 1 to 1000, and then splits them into 10 equal bands, your 605 week is in a band of all weeks from 601-700, and thus qualifies to trade for anything in that band or lower.  If they then change to 20 bands, your 605 is STILL a 605, but can no longer trade into anything above 650.  If they change to 100 bands, you can no longer trade into anything above 610.  They have not change the trading power, but your ability to trade has been diminished.  From the perspective of someone with a 695, this is a benefit because it reduces the demand on the weeks in the upper half of the 601-700 band,  In essesnce, that 695 became a more powerful trader, though the owner of that week won't necessarily "see" any difference.
> 
> It would be no different if RCI kept the bands intact, but increased the trade power of everything by 50 points, shifting the top half of the band into a higher band.  The net effect is you lose the ability to trade into those weeks, though YOUR trade power has not changed.
> 
> Since those weeks that were a trade up did in fact have a higher trade power, RCI does not consider them like-for-like trades.  Obviously RCI is tightening their definition of what is like-for-like.  Some of the other exchange companies have similar policies.  You like II, but how many members here are thrilled that they can only place limited requests for 2BR units with their top 1BR week?  Sure, if a 2BR is available they can get it, but if they have to use a search, they are stuck requesting a 1BR, and II makes it difficult for them to refuse that 1BR when it appears.
> 
> If people won't like the way RCI operates, they have other options.  Go ahead and use them, but understand that RCI has a program that works well for some of us, just as II works well for others.  The new system sounds fair to me - for the member who only wants to trade once every 3 years, perhaps RCI isn't what they want anyway.  For the person who trades most years, it should work well.  That slight trade up (the one you saw pre 5/2009 but not after) will have to be balanced with a slight trade down.  Sounds fair to me.  Yes, it means having to bank another week to use a few of its points, but that's just RCI's way of encouraging repeat customers, or loyalty.  If you don't wish to be a loyal customer, then you don't get the benefit of shifting your points to get the trades you want.


----------



## Carolinian

The best flexibility is trading within a band or range instead of being stuck with an exact number system.  That is especially true when that published exact number is set by a non-transparent backroom system prone to manipulation by developers.  An exact number system ends the flexibility of trading within a range.  Having to tie up an extra week to get a few extra points lite is also limiting your flexibility because now you would lose the flexibility to do something else with that second week like rent it, use it yourself, or give it to a different exchange company.  In many ways you lose flexibility with such a system.  





Tommart said:


> I agree that narrowing bands makes it more difficult to trade for a better unit within the band.  This is to RCI's advantage.
> 
> And if RCI abolishes bands under the new approach, it makes it impossible to trade evenly for a unit with a higher rating even if the two units were formerly in the same band.  This is the extreme narrowing of bands.  Each band is one point.
> 
> It is unclear whether bands will be abolished under the new system.  But to me, it makes sense to abolish them, and I'm OK with that.  Based on what I know now, I like the increased flexibility that the new approach will bring.
> 
> In the past, I've taken 2-bedrooms, when I only needed one.  I might not do that in the future.  In fact, if my week is worth 600 credits, I might take a 300 point week rather than the 500 point I took in the past.  If I want to exchange for a 800 point week, I'll have that option as well.


----------



## miamidan

Carol,

I applaud you for your commitment to this cause.  You may end up being dead right but, I think most of us have decided that we at least would like to know our value with one exchange company.  If it does not work like you say there are alternatives.  I believe we will know our trading power prior to banking as well.  Seems like the most open system out there.  Of course we have not seen it but, I am hoping it will be a breath of fresh air to know how any exchange company values my deposit inventory and what I want to exchange into.  I might love it I might hate it but, at least I will somewhat know quantitatively why I love/hate it.


----------



## sfwilshire

I am sorry to say I just haven't had the time to follow all the posts on this topic. Will we still be able to "trade up" at 45 days? Or will that be gone?

I was planning to try to rent most of my weeks next year since I have too many on deposit. If they don't rent, I deposit them late, which may be a problem under the new system.

Sheila


----------



## bnoble

I don't think anyone knows for sure.


----------



## miamidan

Carolinian said:


> The best flexibility is trading within a band or range instead of being stuck with an exact number system.  That is especially true when that published exact number is set by a non-transparent backroom system prone to manipulation by developers.  An exact number system ends the flexibility of trading within a range.  Having to tie up an extra week to get a few extra points lite is also limiting your flexibility because now you would lose the flexibility to do something else with that second week like rent it, use it yourself, or give it to a different exchange company.  In many ways you lose flexibility with such a system.



Maybe I am missing something but, it seems to me the only time trading within a band is flexible is if you are on the bottom end of that band.  I for the life of me can't see why you would not want "change back" if what you requested was valued lower.

It would be nice if my maintenance fee were payable by bands.  If the fees were between $401 and $449 then I would pay $450.  If they were between $450 and $499 I would pay $500.

That would be a great deal until the fees reached $451 at which time I would become furious with the band system.


----------



## jerseygirl

*Email From Starwood with Effective Date*

Email from Starwood:

Dear Valued Owner,

RCI, LLC (RCI) recently announced to Resort affiliates that on *November 15, 2010* changes will be implemented to the RCI® Weeks* program.  You are receiving this email because our records indicate that you are currently or were previously a member of RCI.  If you are no longer a member of RCI you may disregard this message.

The changes to the RCI Weeks program include:

1.The disclosure of the numeric Deposit Trading Power of all available deposited weeks in your member account
2.The disclosure of the numeric Exchange Trading Power required to confirm an available exchange week
3.The ability to combine multiple deposits from multiple RCI affiliated resorts and use years into a combined Deposit for a fee
4.Receive a Deposit Credit when you accept an exchange that requires less Exchange Trading Power than your Deposited Week to use for a future exchange
RCI indicates that they are not changing their established Trading Power formula; they are merely making it transparent to all RCI members. As a reminder, the calculation of the RCI Trading Power for any fixed weeks you have on deposit, or will deposit, will be determined by RCI based on:

•the demand, supply and utilization of your Vacation Time, and the Affiliated Resort and geographic regions associated with your Vacation Time;
•the seasonal designation of your Vacation Time;
•the size and type of your unit (i.e., number of bedrooms, kitchen type and maximum/private occupancy of the physical unit);
•comment card scores that RCI compiles from comments submitted by Members who visit your Resort;
•the date you place your Deposit with RCI, and the start date of the Deposited Vacation Time
Fixed week owners depositing your deeded week with RCI at least 9 months in advance of the start date of the week will be entitled to receive your maximum eligible trading power.  Trading Power will decline for deposits received less than 9 months in advance.  There are no changes to how you deposit your week with RCI (you will continue to contact RCI directly).


You can find more information regarding RCI’s Announcement in your most recent issue of Endless Vacation magazine.  If you have additional questions regarding the RCI Weeks program changes, please contact RCI at 1-800-433-5400.


Sincerely
SVO Management Inc.

*These changes do not apply to RCI members who have enrolled your vacation ownership weeks in the RCI® Points program.


----------



## MichaelColey

Ah, one new nugget of information:





> 3.The ability to combine multiple deposits from multiple RCI affiliated resorts and use years into a combined Deposit *for a fee*


So it sounds like the "change" can probably be combined for free, but they'll charge if you want to combine multiple deposits to trade up.

I think that's probably a good thing. It makes those high trading value units/weeks even more valuable.


----------



## MichaelColey

*RCI Enhancement: 10 Saved Searches*

It looks like you can now have 10 saved searches instead of 5.  Much needed!

Now if they could just fix some of the bugs.


----------



## Bourne

thx for the update


----------



## london

*Ten Saved Searches*

Ten searches should be enough for most RCI members.

At one point, about 3 years ago, I had 6 weeks in the bank, and that feature would be real handy.

Now I am down to one banked week, but I still use the saved searches feature.


----------



## g4fishing

Can you explain how to use this feature on RCI?


----------



## cruisin

MichaelColey said:


> Ah, one new nugget of information:So it sounds like the "change" can probably be combined for free, but they'll charge if you want to combine multiple deposits to trade up.
> 
> I think that's probably a good thing. It makes those high trading value units/weeks even more valuable.




Nothing RCI does is ever  good for the majority of people, it is always less for more money, there will be some who win, most will lose, probably more flexibility if you have lots of deposits, but at what cost? At my resort, we are big losers, now we can combine deposits and a fee to get something, and our resort is a good resort. Our dues were $660 plus $179 for exchange for some nice properties, now maybe 1 and a half units at $990, plus $179, plus the fee to combine, even if its $50 that will be  a lot for an exchange. It will be hard to imagine many owners rushing to get the same thing for so much more cost. I cant wait to hear the rci reports over the next few years at our annual meeting, even since the devaluation on 5/30, deposits are way down compared to the last 10 years, the nice thing is that it already bothers the RCI Rep.


----------



## Tommart

*Largely what we expected*

The extra fee to combine is annoying to me--especially if it's a significant amount, e.g. $89 or more.

Yes, this could mitigate the raid on the top units.

But it also hurts those who may have two Blue units and want to exchange for a Red unit.

Or those with lower-tier resorts, who want to trade for a middle-tier resort.

It also complicates things for those with locked units.  I have always deposited my locked 2-bedroom as two one-bedrooms.  Now, I will need to make a decision on whether to deposit as a two-bedroom, or as two one-bedrooms and realize that I may need to combine them and pay an extra fee.

The email does confirm that the new system will be effective November 15, as many have speculated.


----------



## Tommart

sfwilshire said:


> I am sorry to say I just haven't had the time to follow all the posts on this topic. Will we still be able to "trade up" at 45 days? Or will that be gone?
> 
> I was planning to try to rent most of my weeks next year since I have too many on deposit. If they don't rent, I deposit them late, which may be a problem under the new system.
> 
> Sheila



RCI claims they are not changing how they determine the trading power of units.  If this is accurate, you still should be able to deposit in less  than 45 days.  But I agree we do not know for sure.


----------



## crazyhorse

I like the idea of a "visible" trading value exchange system for Weeks Exchange. I have pointed out in the past my opinion on this and my puzzlement on why RCI needed to introduce the Points System in the first place.

As many have posted here, it was mainly for RCI`s and the Resort Developer`s own benefit. Anyway that`s in the past.

However, RCI have always given the impression of pushing the Points System for all their worth, but so far only a minority of Members have changed over to it.

Now here we have a new Points Lite, so we can expect the current "Weeks Exchange" to dissappear. Its not a case of "Weeks Exchange", "Lite Points" and "Points FD" 

The first one, to which most of us belong, will disappear, and we will be left with two Points systems. Points Lite and Points FD. 

So wave bye bye! We will all be in a Points Exchange System.

*Mission partly accomplished.*

*Next step, combine the two Points Systems into One.*

I hope that the new points Lite will be better, easier to use (website dependent!) and fairer.

But will it?

*Questions raised are:*

1. Why did RCI remove the details of the new P.L. from their website?

_"If you confirm an Exchange with a lower trading power than your deposited week, you'll get a Deposit Credit for the remaining trading power you didn't use, which will appear as a new Deposit on your account for you to use however you like. Combine it with another Deposit or use it on its own to look for and book another vacation! **

** These vacations are limited. Destinations and travel times are subject to availability and confirmed on a first come, first served basis.
_

 Why do RCI say the weeks available are limited? Was there any need for them to say this? Why are they limited?

 If the banding system is removed, this goes against the traditional principles of RCI, that weeks can only be exchanged "like for like" . I anticipate that RCI would wish to retain this aspect of the Weeks System.

 If the weeks were in one big band, all these weeks would be available to allcomers providing they have enough Lite Points available. So I don`t think that these weeks available would be limited. Thus this supports the idea that bands will be   retained.


2. How long will we have to spend "Left Over Lite Points".? If other systems eg Points FD, or Airmiles etc they will have a "shelf life". Use them or lose them. And the shelf life is of course determined by RCI and is subject to change. 


3. The entry in another thread posted by jerseygirl is revealing. 
quote from Starwood _" The ability to combine multiple deposits from multiple RCI affiliated resorts and use years into a combined Deposit for a fee"_

Why do we have to pay a fee for combining unused portions of weeks deposited? (obvious). Will that fee apply for unused portions of weeks from the Same Resort?

The only reason we would want to combine weeks left over is for upgrading, so we may have no option but to pay a fee.







 .


----------



## Mel

crazyhorse said:


> I like the idea of a "visible" trading value exchange system for Weeks Exchange. I have pointed out in the past my opinion on this and my puzzlement on why RCI needed to introduce the Points System in the first place.
> 
> As many have posted here, it was mainly for RCI`s and the Resort Developer`s own benefit. Anyway that`s in the past.
> 
> However, RCI have always given the impression of pushing the Points System for all their worth, but so far only a minority of Members have changed over to it.


The reason most of us never changed over is because of the fee involved - if we own multiple weeks at more than one resort, we have to pay as much as $3000 per resort to change to RCI Points.  I suspect RCI envisioned a system where most members would convert, but the developers got in the way.

This time around, they are converting everybody, and the developers don't get any extra money.


> Now here we have a new Points Lite, so we can expect the current "Weeks Exchange" to dissappear. Its not a case of "Weeks Exchange", "Lite Points" and "Points FD"
> 
> The first one, to which most of us belong, will disappear, and we will be left with two Points systems. Points Lite and Points FD.
> 
> So wave bye bye! We will all be in a Points Exchange System.
> 
> *Mission partly accomplished.*
> 
> *Next step, combine the two Points Systems into One.*


That won't happen without people who paid $3000 to convert crying foul.  If anything, we will probably see them becoming more and more alike, but RCI will maintain some sort of benefit for the points owners - such as split-week usage (for those resorts that offer it).  Remember also that RCI Points assumes you are depositing, where RCI Weeks waits for you to deposit.  As such an RCI Points member can reserve his own week, and then cancel it when he decided he wants to do something else, and still have his full allotment of points.  RCI Weeks members will only get a full allotment of credits by depositing 9 months ahead.  RCI almost has to maintain some differences.


> I hope that the new points Lite will be better, easier to use (website dependent!) and fairer.
> 
> But will it?
> 
> *Questions raised are:*
> 
> 1. Why did RCI remove the details of the new P.L. from their website?
> 
> _"If you confirm an Exchange with a lower trading power than your deposited week, you'll get a Deposit Credit for the remaining trading power you didn't use, which will appear as a new Deposit on your account for you to use however you like. Combine it with another Deposit or use it on its own to look for and book another vacation! **
> 
> ** These vacations are limited. Destinations and travel times are subject to availability and confirmed on a first come, first served basis.
> _
> 
> Why do RCI say the weeks available are limited? Was there any need for them to say this? Why are they limited?


They are limited because the remainder points are likely to be in small increments - such that they may only qualify for blue studios or last-minute exchanges





> If the banding system is removed, this goes against the traditional principles of RCI, that weeks can only be exchanged "like for like" . I anticipate that RCI would wish to retain this aspect of the Weeks System.
> 
> If the weeks were in one big band, all these weeks would be available to allcomers providing they have enough Lite Points available. So I don`t think that these weeks available would be limited. Thus this supports the idea that bands will be   retained.


Most of us believe there will still be bands, but not in the same broad sense.  Rather than dumping your week into one of 10 bins, there will be 60 bins, so fewer weeks will be considered a perfectly even exchange.


> 2. How long will we have to spend "Left Over Lite Points".? If other systems eg Points FD, or Airmiles etc they will have a "shelf life". Use them or lose them. And the shelf life is of course determined by RCI and is subject to change.


Since there is a shelf life to your original deposit, it only makes sense for there to be a shelf life for the remainder points.  Otherwise you'll have the person who deposits a week worth 60 credits, who then uses 5 points for a single last-minute reservation, and leaving the remainin 55 points for however long they wish.  Not a good idea.





> 3. The entry in another thread posted by jerseygirl is revealing.
> quote from Starwood _" The ability to combine multiple deposits from multiple RCI affiliated resorts and use years into a combined Deposit for a fee"_
> 
> Why do we have to pay a fee for combining unused portions of weeks deposited? (obvious). Will that fee apply for unused portions of weeks from the Same Resort?


You can't really compare two different systems that way.  What starwood was suggesting was the ability to in effect exchange multiple weeks within Starwood internally, to get a single high-value Starwood week to deposit to RCI.  With a new Credit system, that whould not be necessary.





> The only reason we would want to combine weeks left over is for upgrading, so we may have no option but to pay a fee.


RCI has not said whether they will charge a fee to combine points.  I could see it going either way.  But even if they don't charge to combine them, assuming you're using 5 leftover points from each of 4 weeks to get an extra 20-point week, you're still paying an exchange fee.  Do you call that an extra fee?


----------



## jerseygirl

Mel said:


> What starwood was suggesting was the ability to in effect exchange multiple weeks within Starwood internally, to get a single high-value Starwood week to deposit to RCI.  With a new Credit system, that whould not be necessary.RCI has not said whether they will charge a fee to combine points.  I could see it going either way.  But even if they don't charge to combine them, assuming you're using 5 leftover points from each of 4 weeks to get an extra 20-point week, you're still paying an exchange fee.  Do you call that an extra fee?



Starwood's email was specific to the new RCI platform. See the related, long thread for the full text.


----------



## krj9999

Has RCI ever implemented an "enhancement" that didn't also enrich their bottom line?  Should we really be surprised that new fees are a component of the changes.


----------



## crazyhorse

I suppose this has been posted before on this site somewhere, but if not:

RCI - Understanding the Upcoming Enhancements to Your Membership - Inside RCI

http://app.rci.com/landing/InsideRCI/memenhancements/index.html?promo=VANNAENUSWInsideRCIEnhance



ps I found this link after my previous post.


----------



## Carolinian

As I have previously posted, the piddling change back on a close week that does not have exactly the same numbers is inconsequential and one can throw it away if he wants with no problem.  What is aggravating is the nickle and diming in both directions for trades that are so close they are essentially equivalent.  That is what stinks in an exact number system.  It is a major imposition to have to tie up an entire second week for a handful on points lite to come out to an equal number.  A system based on bands, and on bands like the old bands, is more user friendly than an exact number system. IF you have to tie up even a tiny fraction of a second week, that keeps you from using it yourself, renting it, or giving it to another exchange company.




miamidan said:


> Maybe I am missing something but, it seems to me the only time trading within a band is flexible is if you are on the bottom end of that band.  I for the life of me can't see why you would not want "change back" if what you requested was valued lower.
> 
> It would be nice if my maintenance fee were payable by bands.  If the fees were between $401 and $449 then I would pay $450.  If they were between $450 and $499 I would pay $500.
> 
> That would be a great deal until the fees reached $451 at which time I would become furious with the band system.


----------



## bccash63

What will happen to the internal trade preference in the mini systems.  VRI has a 30 day priority period.  Starwood has a priority period in RCI.  With Wyndham I can trade up to a 2 br with a studio because of an internal trade preference.  Any thoughts??? Dawn


----------



## MichaelColey

That's one of the unknowns.  RCI hasn't given us any indication whether group priorities (and 45 day exchanges and PFD and trading bands and many other things) will continue as they are or change or be eliminated, but with such a fundamental change to the entire system you never know what's going to be impacted until you see the final product.  We'll know for sure in a little over 2 weeks.


----------



## Dave599

MichaelColey said:


> That's one of the unknowns.  RCI hasn't given us any indication whether group priorities (and 45 day exchanges and PFD and trading bands and many other things) will continue as they are or change or be eliminated, but with such a fundamental change to the entire system you never know what's going to be impacted until you see the final product.  We'll know for sure in a little over 2 weeks.



- Group priorities will still work

- You will NOT be able to do PFD on credits

- close date discounts will still be there, in fact you will be able to snatch and grab last minute, ie you use a 20 and book a 20 even trade, get the insurance, 2 weeks from check in same unit is available for 10 cancel what you have re book and you end up with a 10 credit no extra cost.......

- Putting 2 weeks together, 1 week and a credit, 2 credits etc all will have a fee last I heard 79.00 RCI is in it for the bucks.

- When you add to a week, either 2 banks or a credit and a bank etc the new week will be good for 2 years from that dates month end. So if you have 2 weeks that are about to expire put them together and the new week is good for 2 more years........I wonder if they thought of this no more extending deposits......

That's all I can remember from my last conversation with my friend......

Dave


----------



## MichaelColey

Incredible information, Dave!  Thanks so much for getting this from your friend, and for sharing.





Dave599 said:


> - Group priorities will still work


Any idea how those will work?  Right now, it looks like we get "extra trading power" for resorts in the same group.  For instance, I have a 1BR deposit in resort A and a 2BR deposit in resort B.  The B deposit sees 21% more units, so it has better trading value.  But if I look at units within A's group, my A deposit sees almost twice as many units.



Dave599 said:


> - You will NOT be able to do PFD on credits


PFD of full weeks (that haven't been partially used or combined with other weeks/credits) will still be possible, right?



Dave599 said:


> - close date discounts will still be there, in fact you will be able to snatch and grab last minute, ie you use a 20 and book a 20 even trade, get the insurance, 2 weeks from check in same unit is available for 10 cancel what you have re book and you end up with a 10 credit no extra cost.......


Are you just using 10 as an example?  Won't all close in deposits be 5 (the lowest trading power)?



Dave599 said:


> - Putting 2 weeks together, 1 week and a credit, 2 credits etc all will have a fee last I heard 79.00 RCI is in it for the bucks.


Still not bad in the scheme of things.  If I combine two deposits with $300 MFs that get a trading power of 30, that gives me a true tiger (60) for just $679.  Add a $179 exchange fee, and for $858 I would be able to exchange into units with MFs of $2000-$2500 or more.  (That's assuming you can find a 30 TP for $300 MF or less, which I think is possible with some lockoffs.)

Do you have any idea what the TP ranges for the 6 current bands are?  5-?, ?-?, ?-?, ?-?, ?-?, ?-60

Can you confirm whether banding will go away or not?

I've seen people mention that you will be able to see your trading power before depositing (which could really help picking a floating week), but I haven't seen that in anything official or unofficial from RCI.  Any ideas if that's really going to happen?


----------



## dundey

Mel said:


> That won't happen without people who paid $3000 to convert crying foul.



Yeah right, RCI is really worried about the t/s public crying foul!! LOL!!!!
Been there done that.

You said it yourself, it was the resorts not RCI that charged these high conversion fees, pretty easy for RCI to put the blame elsewhere, but of course it does not even matter because they simply don't care.

BTW I was recently contacted by a resort I own that I can now convert into points for the just the $199 RCI fee.  The resort is NOT charging anything to convert.  Perhaps this is the beginning of the putting the 2 systems together.  I was going to buy a points resort awhile back to take advantage of PFD.  I'm not doing anything now until this shakes out a bit more.
Long term, we'll mainly use the weeks we own (other than SA) to use and not trade.


----------



## MuranoJo

Excellent point, Dundey.


----------



## miamidan

Carolinian said:


> As I have previously posted, the piddling change back on a close week that does not have exactly the same numbers is inconsequential and one can throw it away if he wants with no problem.  What is aggravating is the nickle and diming in both directions for trades that are so close they are essentially equivalent.  That is what stinks in an exact number system.  It is a major imposition to have to tie up an entire second week for a handful on points lite to come out to an equal number.  A system based on bands, and on bands like the old bands, is more user friendly than an exact number system. IF you have to tie up even a tiny fraction of a second week, that keeps you from using it yourself, renting it, or giving it to another exchange company.



Carol,

You have finally won me over.  Knowing the value of your week is a terrible inflexible thing.  Knowing the value of all inventory out there is a terrible terrible thing.  Being able to make an informed consumer decision is terribly inflexible.  The arrogance of a company to say "hello what you are taking out is worth less than what you are giving us is ridiculous"  and it is outright outrageious that a company might say sorry mate you are a tad bit short on your payment but you do have other payment options for this ridiculously overpriced 3 bedroom in Hawaii is shocking.

I am going to start boycotting all companies that don't do business only in bands.  Oh wait that would mean I would boycott everyone except the exchange companies.

You have converted me though it is shocking that RCI might want to give us credits back for a future exchange.  If you get credits back from your exchange can you please send them my way?  I will make that painful step and try to use them.

On a serious note i would expect a fee to combine credits


----------



## got4boys

*RCI Weeks Numeric Trade Power to Start November 15th*

Here is an email I got this morning from my HOA on the RCI Weeks... it looks like the official date will be November 15th.

"Dear Valued Owner,

RCI, LLC (RCI) recently announced to Resort affiliates that on November 15, 2010 changes will be implemented to the RCI® Weeks* program.  You are receiving this email because our records indicate that you are currently or were previously a member of RCI.  If you are no longer a member of RCI you may disregard this message.

The changes to the RCI Weeks program include:

The disclosure of the numeric Deposit Trading Power of all available deposited weeks in your member account
The disclosure of the numeric Exchange Trading Power required to confirm an available exchange week
The ability to combine multiple deposits from multiple RCI affiliated resorts and use years into a combined Deposit for a fee
Receive a Deposit Credit when you accept an exchange that requires less Exchange Trading Power than your Deposited Week to use for a future exchange
After November 15th, the calculation of the Trading Power for any future weeks you deposited with RCI will be determined by RCI based on:

the demand, supply, and utilization of your Vacation Time, and the Affiliated Resort and geographic region associated with your Vacation Time;
the seasonal designation of your Vacation Time;
the size and type of your unit (i.e., number of bedrooms, kitchen type and maximum/private occupancy of the physical unit);
comment card scores that RCI compiles from comments submitted by Members who visit your Affiliated Resort; 
the Average Deposit Trading Power of all the intervals in the reservation season you purchased from your home resort, combined with how far in advance each week was pre-deposited with RCI on your behalf
Owners requesting RCI deposits between November 9 and December 15, 2010 may experience a temporary processing delay until mid-December 2010 as the final blended Trading Power is calculated by RCI. Be assured that all requests will be honored in the order received, and you will receive an electronic confirmation once your transaction has been processed.
The Trading Power of available Deposits in your RCI account prior to November 15, 2010 will be based on the date of Deposit and the start date of the Deposited Vacation Time for the week that was transferred into your RCI Membership Account by Owner Services.  

There will be no changes to how you request an exchange with RCI.  You will continue to contact Owner Services and we will be happy to provide a deposit to RCI on your behalf.  

You can find more information regarding RCI’s Announcement in your most recent issue of Endless Vacation magazine.  If you have additional questions regarding the RCI Weeks program changes, please contact RCI at 1-800-433-5400.

Sincerely
SVO Management, Inc.

*These changes do not apply to RCI members who have enrolled your vacation ownership weeks in the RCI® Points program."


Peggy


----------



## derb

I can hardly wait to see how badly RCI screws this one up.


----------



## chriskre

derb said:


> I can hardly wait to see how badly RCI screws this one up.



:hysterical: 

Oh the love of RCI.  Maybe they will get it right this time.


----------



## jlwquilter

I would expect a fee to combine too.. why wouldn't they charge a fee? they are providing a srevice and a service costs. Right or wrong that's how businesses generally work.

Where I see a slippery slope is that once I do an non-exact exchange, either up or down, I have leftover credits. More than likely I'll have to pay a combo fee to be able to use the leftovers. I make an exchange and once again have leftovers. Now there's another combo fee to be faced.. and it keeps going on like that. It'll be tricky to find a 2nd or 3rd or whatever exchange down the road that will get me back to even (no leftovers).

If I do 3 exchanges and have 3 leftovers and want to combine them to be able to make an exchange will I pay 2 combo fees or just one as I am doing the combo all at once? I know the answer is not available yet, but I think it's going to be a real question people have.


----------



## BevL

I will printing out copies of all my exchange confirmations before then.  They've lost them before (although they always come back) but this is a really big overhaul.  Considering their weekly maintenance often causes problems, it could be quite a while before their site actually works properly.


----------



## crazyhorse

:ignore: 

_Owners requesting RCI deposits between November 9 and December 15, 2010 may experience a temporary processing delay until mid-December 2010 as the final blended Trading Power is calculated by RCI.
_
why?


----------



## markel

crazyhorse said:


> :ignore:
> 
> _Owners requesting RCI deposits between November 9 and December 15, 2010 may experience a temporary processing delay until mid-December 2010 as the final blended Trading Power is calculated by RCI.
> _
> why?




So what does this mean for those with Wyndham pts. that expire the end of Dec. 2010?? If this says "temporary processing delay until mid-December" who's to say it may not be longer. If I deposit my pts. into RCI now, I assume that they will be assigned a value and that I'll be able to see it. Does this sound correct?

Mark


----------



## Dave*H

crazyhorse said:


> :ignore:
> 
> _Owners requesting RCI deposits between November 9 and December 15, 2010 may experience a temporary processing delay until mid-December 2010 as the final blended Trading Power is calculated by RCI.
> _
> why?



Multiple choice:

1. There is a lot of number crunching to be done and a 286 simply is not that fast.

2. They are low on the food used to feed the gerbils that power the computers that do the calculations.

3. Computer?  What's a computer?  An abacus isn't dependent on the grid.


----------



## itisme

*More money grab!*



got4boys said:


> The ability to combine multiple deposits from multiple RCI affiliated resorts and use years into a combined Deposit for a fee



They will charge a fee for combining multiple deposits. Changes designed for prime week owners to trade down than dog week owners to combine and exchange into a prime week.


----------



## timeos2

*You can let it go if you want*



itisme said:


> They will charge a fee for combining multiple deposits. Changes designed for prime week owners to trade down than dog week owners to combine and exchange into a prime week.



One of the features of the RCI Points system is the ability to combine points at no cost.  It makes sense that a non-points system, that is limited to 7 day stays, would have fees such as one to combine points that a Points member wouldn't pay. It is a new feature not previously available. 

Remember you don't HAVE to do anything with the credits and just let them go to waste as they have for over 3 decades. No charge to do that.


----------



## Mel

got4boys said:


> After November 15th, the calculation of the Trading Power for any future weeks you deposited with RCI will be determined by RCI based on:
> 
> the demand, supply, and utilization of your Vacation Time, and the Affiliated Resort and geographic region associated with your Vacation Time;
> the seasonal designation of your Vacation Time;
> the size and type of your unit (i.e., number of bedrooms, kitchen type and maximum/private occupancy of the physical unit);
> comment card scores that RCI compiles from comments submitted by Members who visit your Affiliated Resort;
> the Average Deposit Trading Power of all the intervals in the reservation season you purchased from your home resort, combined with how far in advance each week was pre-deposited with RCI on your behalfOwners requesting RCI deposits between November 9 and December 15, 2010 may experience a temporary processing delay until mid-December 2010 as the final blended Trading Power is calculated by RCI. Be assured that all requests will be honored in the order received, and you will receive an electronic confirmation once your transaction has been processed.
> The Trading Power of available Deposits in your RCI account prior to November 15, 2010 will be based on the date of Deposit and the start date of the Deposited Vacation Time for the week that was transferred into your RCI Membership Account by Owner Services.
> 
> There will be no changes to how you request an exchange with RCI.  You will continue to contact Owner Services and we will be happy to provide a deposit to RCI on your behalf.


Obviously, this is regarding ownership as a floating week resort - otherwise there would be no need to consider "average trading power" of weeks within your season.  From what I'm seeing, it sounds like floating week owners, at least at this resort, will all have the same trade power.  If you weren't able to reserve a week to be deposited, but had to let management choose for you, this will probably mean little difference.  

I hope we will hear from owners of other types of resorts, particularly those with floating weeks where they are allowed to reserve and then deposit a peak week of their own choosing.

It seems to me that the system described above is OK for the average timeshare owner - it won't matter if you call at the last minute ro have the resort desposit for you, as I suspect many owners do.  But it also means management may be more likely to deposit the less desired week to RCI, leaving the better weeks for owners to use.  That will obviously result in lower trade power for those who exchange, but is probably no different than what has happened in the past.

It further sounds like existing deposits will be individually evaluated, based on use-week, rather than an average

It also sounds like maybe that period between Nov 9 and Dec 12 might not be so much an issue with RCI valuing the deposits, but the resort coming to an agreement with RCI about what is to be deposited and how to calculate the average (Perhaps an average value of all deposits made Nov 9 through Dec 15, to be assigned to each of those deposits.

Has anyone else heard from their home resorts?


----------



## Mel

Dave599 said:


> - close date discounts will still be there, in fact you will be able to snatch and grab last minute, ie you use a 20 and book a 20 even trade, get the insurance, 2 weeks from check in same unit is available for 10 cancel what you have re book and you end up with a 10 credit no extra cost.......


This is just as we were speculating.  It could add some real value to the Insurance, though would be fees to combine the leftover credits with something else.  Of course, you might avoid those fees by finding another exchange for 10 credits.

In essence, you still have your original exchange, plus an extra last minute reservation for the cost of another exchange fee plus the incurance cost.





> - Putting 2 weeks together, 1 week and a credit, 2 credits etc all will have a fee last I heard 79.00 RCI is in it for the bucks.
> 
> - When you add to a week, either 2 banks or a credit and a bank etc the new week will be good for 2 years from that dates month end. So if you have 2 weeks that are about to expire put them together and the new week is good for 2 more years........I wonder if they thought of this no more extending deposits......


That could have considerable implications, both on extending deposits, and on deposit of lockoff units.



MichaelColey said:


> Still not bad in the scheme of things.  If I combine two deposits with $300 MFs that get a trading power of 30, that gives me a true tiger (60) for just $679.  Add a $179 exchange fee, and for $858 I would be able to exchange into units with MFs of $2000-$2500 or more.  (That's assuming you can find a 30 TP for $300 MF or less, which I think is possible with some lockoffs.)



Consider the opposite, along with Daves last comment.  A couple of examples:

You have a deposit worth 45 credits, and don't see the exchange you want.  If the lowest band is in fact 5 credits, you could make one last minute reservation and extend the life of your remaining 40 credits another 2 years, just before they expire.

Also, it sounds like using the leftover credits on their own won't cost more than the exchange fee - it is combining credits that costs.  If The parts of a lockoff in fact add up to the same value as the whole unit, the it would make sense to deposit as a whole unit.  That would allow the points to be "split" whatever way the member wants (rather than split 20/25 as individual units, you could use them as 15/30 if you so chose).  If you deposit as a Whole unit, you use what you want on your first exchance, and the rest on a second exchange (with the added benefit of possibly extending the life of that credit).  

If you deposit your lockoff as 2 distinct units, you are stuck with the credit values RCI assigns.  If you want to exchange into a 30, you have to pay the fee to combine your credits before you even exchange, and are still left with a 15 credit deposit.  If you start with a 15 credit exchange, you are left either with a 25 credit deposit and 5 leftover credits, or 20  and 10, which will either be used separately, or you have to pay to combine them.  Perhaps this will encourage more deposits of full units, which would increase the availability of some higher valued exchanges.

If the split deposits end up worth more than the whole unit, owners would have to decide which is of more benefit - avoiding the $79 fee, or having an extra few credits.  Maybe we'll know more once the system is up and running.


----------



## MichaelColey

They've said that trading power isn't changing.  In the past (and also in RCI Points), the two sides of a lockout are worth more than the whole.  I would expect that to continue with the new RCI Weeks.  For instance, with my Palace View 3BR lockouts, they have PFD values of 39.5k and 52.5k (92k total) when split, but just 68k as a single deposit.


----------



## "Roger"

MichaelColey said:


> They've said that trading power isn't changing.  In the past (and also in RCI Points), the two sides of a lockout are worth more than the whole.  I would expect that to continue with the new RCI Weeks.  For instance, with my Palace View 3BR lockouts, they have PFD values of 39.5k and 52.5k (92k total) when split, but just 68k as a single deposit.


Are you talking about with PDF?  Every case I have seen within points, the splits add up to the same as depositing the unit as a whole.


----------



## Larry

got4boys said:


> Here is an email I got this morning from my HOA on the RCI Weeks... it looks like the official date will be November 15th.
> 
> "Dear Valued Owner,
> 
> RCI, LLC (RCI) recently announced to Resort affiliates that on November 15, 2010 changes will be implemented to the RCI® Weeks* program.  You are receiving this email because our records indicate that you are currently or were previously a member of RCI.  If you are no longer a member of RCI you may disregard this message.
> 
> The changes to the RCI Weeks program include:
> 
> The disclosure of the numeric Deposit Trading Power of all available deposited weeks in your member accountThe disclosure of the numeric Exchange Trading Power required to confirm an available exchange week
> Peggy




I own 12 weeks and some are dual affiliated with RCI and II. I rent out about 6-8 weeks per year and have only deposited 2 of my weeks with RCI this past year and have none currently deposited.

Does this mean that I can only find out how many credits I will get, only after my week is deposited or can I call RCI and find out what my resort week will be worth before I make a deposit??????


----------



## MichaelColey

"Are you talking about with PDF? Every case I have seen within points, the splits add up to the same as depositing the unit as a whole."

Actually, it's PFD (Points For Deposit). But, yes. That's what I'm talking about. In the generic grids (http://www.rci.com/GPN/CDA/Common/pdf/RCI_ExGridsUpdate1.pdf), I can't find any example where a split lockout isn't worth more than the lockout as a whole.


----------



## Mel

With the generic grids, RCI never assigned a specific set of values for individual resorts - that's why they called them generic grids.  This is only because they give a general value for all 1BR units in a given area (with similar award status), no matter how big or small.

I suspect we will see something more like points, where they add up to the same thing.  Under the current system, people often have deposited as 2 units because they felt the single unit didn't give them enough of an advantage, but we have never know whether it was really worth more as 2 units or not.

I realize RCI is in this to make money, and they would collect more exchange fees with 2 deposits and would collect extra if you combine your units after the fact, but if they make the individual parts worth more than the unit as a whole, they may run into a problem - you deposit your 2 sides, and then turn around an pay $79 (the fee David posted) to instantly combine your point.  For that extra fee you get an automatic boost in points.


----------



## Carolinian

We will have to see what changes there are to the 45 day window.  While that is not a critical thing for me, as I have used it maybe once, it is for a great many, probably most, of those who own off season weeks to exchange.  Keeping those weeks viable matters to all of us because if they bail out, it throws our resort finances into a tail spin and hits us with higher m/f's.  So even if we personally do not use the 45 day window, it matters to all of us that RCI not screw it up.  What is important is that any owner of an RCI timeshare have access to all inventory in the 45 day window.  Clearly RCI has already restricted this, directly or indirectly, to some extent over what it used to be in the pre-Cendent days when RCI actually cared about members and resort affiliates.  Further restriction will cause further damage.  Making public the restrictions they have already imposed will also do damage.




Dave599 said:


> - Group priorities will still work
> 
> - You will NOT be able to do PFD on credits
> 
> - close date discounts will still be there, in fact you will be able to snatch and grab last minute, ie you use a 20 and book a 20 even trade, get the insurance, 2 weeks from check in same unit is available for 10 cancel what you have re book and you end up with a 10 credit no extra cost.......
> 
> - Putting 2 weeks together, 1 week and a credit, 2 credits etc all will have a fee last I heard 79.00 RCI is in it for the bucks.
> 
> - When you add to a week, either 2 banks or a credit and a bank etc the new week will be good for 2 years from that dates month end. So if you have 2 weeks that are about to expire put them together and the new week is good for 2 more years........I wonder if they thought of this no more extending deposits......
> 
> That's all I can remember from my last conversation with my friend......
> 
> Dave


----------



## Carolinian

Best solution?  Extract yourself from the RCI shell game and use II or the independent exchange companies.




jlwquilter said:


> I would expect a fee to combine too.. why wouldn't they charge a fee? they are providing a srevice and a service costs. Right or wrong that's how businesses generally work.
> 
> Where I see a slippery slope is that once I do an non-exact exchange, either up or down, I have leftover credits. More than likely I'll have to pay a combo fee to be able to use the leftovers. I make an exchange and once again have leftovers. Now there's another combo fee to be faced.. and it keeps going on like that. It'll be tricky to find a 2nd or 3rd or whatever exchange down the road that will get me back to even (no leftovers).
> 
> If I do 3 exchanges and have 3 leftovers and want to combine them to be able to make an exchange will I pay 2 combo fees or just one as I am doing the combo all at once? I know the answer is not available yet, but I think it's going to be a real question people have.


----------



## Carolinian

crazyhorse said:


> :ignore:
> 
> _Owners requesting RCI deposits between November 9 and December 15, 2010 may experience a temporary processing delay until mid-December 2010 as the final blended Trading Power is calculated by RCI.
> _
> why?



That sure sounds like a change in trading power to me!


----------



## miamidan

sounds like that resort has chosen to give all owners an average value of the floating season they sold or manage and are not allowing the trading power of unique intervals.  sounds like half will win and half will lose.


----------



## miamidan

Carol,

your points are fascinating and extremely redundant.  I thought there was a time whether it was 30 or 45 days that all inventory would be reduced by at least 50% in trading power required


----------



## miamidan

Carolinian said:


> Best solution?  Extract yourself from the RCI shell game and use II or the independent exchange companies.



Carol,

I have attempted to use the II exchange system and found their unit type quotient very restrictive and not much inventory.  Whenever I look at my DAE inventory list there is nothing there

I certainly don't know what value my week has with them or with sfx or what other weeks cost.  Can you please explain the valuation methodology they use and their virtues and how they can fulfill the mass of requests that we need to make our exchanges work?

The competition is great as it encourages change and growth of services.  I am not aware of the great clarity and more importantly how they openly value the inventory.


----------



## northwoodsgal

The start date of the changes sounds correct.  Yesterday I had a discussion with an RCI internet rep and he mentioned changes to the system would be coming in 2 1/2 to 3 weeks.


----------



## GrayFal

crazyhorse said:


> :ignore:
> 
> _Owners requesting RCI deposits between November 9 and December 15, 2010 may experience a temporary processing delay until mid-December 2010 as the final *blended Trading Power *is calculated by RCI.
> _
> why?





markel said:


> So what does this mean for those with Wyndham pts. that expire the end of Dec. 2010?? If this says "temporary processing delay until mid-December" who's to say it may not be longer. If I deposit my pts. into RCI now, I assume that they will be assigned a value and that I'll be able to see it. Does this sound correct?
> 
> Mark



The OP posted an email from "SVO" Starwood. Blended Trade Power is specific to that program

Starwood no longer allows OWNERS to deposit their reserved weeks with II and RCI.

Rather then getting the wonderful trading power of a July 4th Myrtle Beach week at Sheraton Broadway Plantation - you now get a "blended deposit" of weeks 9-43. Same with Starwood II deposits  

So with II - using their 50-150 demand index, weeks 27-30 have a 150 demand....week 9 has 95 - so you can imagine how 'wonderful' the blended trade power really is  

Just an FYI


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> We will have to see what changes there are to the 45 day window. While that is not a critical thing for me, as I have used it maybe once, it is for a great many, probably most, of those who own off season weeks to exchange. Keeping those weeks viable matters to all of us because if they bail out, it throws our resort finances into a tail spin and hits us with higher m/f's.


It is also very important for RCI.  It does them absolutely no good to let units go unused.  Last minute exchanges earn them an exchange fee and remove liability.  While it's certainly possible that something will change in this area, I certainly don't expect it.


----------



## rickandcindy23

If I combine my summer weeks, now an exchange costs more maintenance fees for me (bottomline), and now a charge to combine the weeks?  I already know that RCI will never get my summer CO weeks again.  RCI charges $179 already for an exchange fee, while II charges only $139.  Too bad II won't take our CO summer weeks, but they won't take a resort with only six units, especially a resort that is 25+ years old.


----------



## Dave599

MichaelColey said:


> Incredible information, Dave!  Thanks so much for getting this from your friend, and for sharing.Any idea how those will work?  Right now, it looks like we get "extra trading power" for resorts in the same group.  For instance, I have a 1BR deposit in resort A and a 2BR deposit in resort B.  The B deposit sees 21% more units, so it has better trading value.  But if I look at units within A's group, my A deposit sees almost twice as many units.



On priority resorts you will only be able to combine with same weeks/credits
to keep your priority status once you combine with a non priority resort your special status is gone....... 



MichaelColey said:


> PFD of full weeks (that haven't been partially used or combined with other weeks/credits) will still be possible, right?



Yes as long as not combined



MichaelColey said:


> Are you just using 10 as an example?  Won't all close in deposits be 5 (the lowest trading power)?


yes, just an example



MichaelColey said:


> Still not bad in the scheme of things.  If I combine two deposits with $300 MFs that get a trading power of 30, that gives me a true tiger (60) for just $679.  Add a $179 exchange fee, and for $858 I would be able to exchange into units with MFs of $2000-$2500 or more.  (That's assuming you can find a 30 TP for $300 MF or less, which I think is possible with some lockoffs.)
> 
> Do you have any idea what the TP ranges for the 6 current bands are?  5-?, ?-?, ?-?, ?-?, ?-?, ?-60
> 
> Can you confirm whether banding will go away or not?


My feeling is bands will not exist it will be an exact number system



MichaelColey said:


> I've seen people mention that you will be able to see your trading power before depositing (which could really help picking a floating week), but I haven't seen that in anything official or unofficial from RCI.  Any ideas if that's really going to happen?



There will be a calculator that will allow you to see banking power before you deposit based on check in date, deposit date etc as well as a calculator to show you historical trading power for a resort (whatever date/size etc) you may be looking for even if it is not banked yet, it won't be 100% accurate because it will be based on historical data but it should be close. 

Please note: the 79.00 to combine I mentioned may not be 100% accurate there will be a fee it could be 69 or 99 or 109 it was my friends best guess on internal rumors I don't think she has be "officially" told yet.

On lockoffs I believe banking as 2 units will give you more "credits" in total then banking as 1 unit what the difference will be I don't know. I would not expect it to be an extreme difference maybe 5 0r 10

Dave


----------



## DeniseM

There are 4 new stickies at the top of the forum for you to post in, to keep this info. organized.  

I am just trying to make it more accessible, not be a big meanie.  

I will transfer posts to the new stickies, upon request.  Send me a pm with a link to the specific post - so I don't have to go searching for it. 

Thanks for your help!


----------



## HuskyJim

With RCI's track record concerning "upgrades", it's anyone's guess when the change will roll-out, and tehn we'll also be guessing when the changes will actually work properly.

RCI has about the worst website regarding errors and bugs and just plain erroneous messages.  Why they have to be off line every weekend for maintenance makes no sense, and is not typical for most websites.

Looking forward to the changes, but the change we get may not be what they intend, or what we expect.


----------



## DeniseM

There was a post saying it will be Nov. 15th.


----------



## DeniseM

Please see the new thread categories that have been opened at the top of the forum for this topic. - Thanks!


----------

