# Rci weeks value of deposit



## lgreenspan

I recently deposited a Resort on Cocoa Beach week with RCI for a deposit value of 36. When I check Rci I can see my week available for trade at a value of 29?Has anyone else seen this with your deposits?


----------



## ronandjoan

Yep!  I deposited a week over a year ago and when the TPU's came out it was a 14.  Unfortunately, I didn;t get a print out  of the page - would it make a differnence? - and then later it dropped to a 12.  I am VERY unhappy!

Yours was a much more valuable week than mine and certianly did not deserve that!


----------



## vckempson

I've pondered this before and wondered what situations lead to this TPU value differential.I have a forthcoming new purchase at Vacation Village Prkwy in Orlando that if I deposit now, it's worth 27 TPU's but I can book the same week on RCI for 7 TPU's.  

Remember, though, that RCI makes money only on booked exchanges.  We always think of supply and demand as a single calculation, but for RCI it may really be two separate equations.  For my orlando week over the 4th of July, RCI can probably book all they can get there hands on but the booking market will only bear 7 TPU's because of all the other competition out there.  On the other hand, they have to entice enough owners to deposit their weeks to keep the supply available, hence the higher deposit value.  I'm curious what other situations exist like this.  Maybe it's almost always like this with the only thing in question being the size of the differential.


----------



## lgreenspan

Maybe I was not clear in my previous post. RCI actually gave me 36 points as the website deposit calculator said. Now when I look on RCIs website I can trade back into my deposit for 29 pts. I am not complaining. I was just curious why.


----------



## tombo

lgreenspan said:


> Maybe I was not clear in my previous post. RCI actually gave me 36 points as the website deposit calculator said. Now when I look on RCIs website I can trade back into my deposit for 29 pts. I am not complaining. I was just curious why.



Because as I said on a different thread, RCI can at their discretion increase the number of TPU's you receive on a week you have already deposited based on their re-evaluation of weeks at their resort, but they will not reduce your # of TPU's after you make the deposit. So your week has dropped in value but they are honoring what they originally gave you when you deposited regardless of what they are now charging to excange for the week you deposited.

There are some people who are going to be mad at RCI no matter what they do. How can you be mad that RCI doesn't ever reduce what you received when you deposited your week, and yet be mad when RCI determines they gave you too few TPU's for your deposit so they increase your trading power? 

I guess people that have their trading power on a deposited week adjusted UPWARD who are upset that RCI changed their trading power can call RCI and complain. Perhaps RCI would take the additional TPU's out of their account to make them happy. Personally I wish they would adjust just one of my deposited weeks upward. I can assure you it wouldn't upset me at all.


----------



## vckempson

We're all talking about different things. The original post was NOT about adjustments to TPU after deposit.  It was about the difference between TPU's given for the deposit vs what it takes to book right back into the same week.  

In my case, they'll give me 27 TPU's to deposit and I could then book the same week through RCI for 7 TPU.  Why such a discrepency is the question.


----------



## tombo

vckempson said:


> We're all talking about different things. The original post was NOT about adjustments to TPU after deposit.  It was about the difference between TPU's given for the deposit vs what it takes to book right back into the same week.
> 
> In my case, they'll give me 27 TPU's to deposit and I could then book the same week through RCI for 7 TPU.  Why such a discrepency is the question.



Differences in time until check-in is the most common reason for varying trading power of identical week. A week that is available for exchange 1 and a half to 2 years in advance are usually much cheaper than the same week 7 to 12 months before check-in. Then as it gets within the 2 to 3 months prior to check-in range it drops like a rock. 

Someone on a previous thread described it as a bell curve where 2 years in advance it exchanges for low TPU's, as it approaches a year prior to check in the TPU's required increase, and after the 6 month or so mark the TPU's required drop and keep dropping. 

The point I was trying to make is that no matter how low your deposited week drops, RCI will not reduce the amount of TPU's they gave you when you deposited your week. If your week becomes in RCI's eyes more valuable they MIGHT (never happened to me) increase the trading power of your previously deposited week, but they will never reduce it.


----------



## vckempson

We're still talking about different things.  If I deposit my week 26 today, I get 27 TPU.  I can also go online today and book the exact same week 26 for only 7 points.  So we're talking about a huge difference in TPU deposit value vs booking cost at the exact same point in time.


----------



## tombo

vckempson said:


> We're still talking about different things.  If I deposit my week 26 today, I get 27 TPU.  I can also go online today and book the exact same week 26 for only 7 points.  So we're talking about a huge difference in TPU deposit value vs booking cost at the exact same point in time.



I just realized you are talking about Vacation Village at the Parkway. RCI has some kind of a deal with them that I have never understood. There is ALWAYS availability at that resort for any time of the year in points and weeks, and you can trade for it with any weak trader in points or weeks, yet for some unknown reason Vacation Village receives an unreal unexplainable amount of TPU's and RCI points for deposit. The only reason I have not purchased a week at this resort is because of the Disney block on people who own in the Orlando area and because I figure that eventually RCI will lower the number of points they give for deposits and the number of TPU's they give for deposits. This resort has for years been a mystery to me with regards to how easy it is to exchange for, yet how high it is valued for deposit by RCI. If anyone knows of another resort that gets unreal value for depositing like VV while being easy and cheap to exchange for, please list it here. All I can say is that Vacation Villages is an anomaly,not the norm with RCI. I can't tell you why Vacation Villages receives many more TPU's for depositing than it EVER costs to actually reserve the same week you are depositing. I think only RCI can answer that question.

In spite of the unexplainable deposit values placed on Vacation Village by RCI, they still basically follow the bell curve model with regards to what it costs to exchange for a VV week. Since check in date for your week is less than 3 months away it is on the downhill slide and can be reserved for 7 TPU's. However the same week in 2012 requires 16 to 19 TPU's. At 8 to 13 or 14 months in advance most weeks cost the most to exchange for that they ever will, but at the6 month mark or so they decrease in what it costs. Yours is now at the bottom of the curve and going for only 7 TPU's since it is getting closer and closer to check-in. 

I can explain why yours costs 16 to 19 TPU's for 2012 and only 7 TPU's for 2011 based on the bell curve RCI seems to be using, but I can not give you any reason why you would get 27 TP's for depositing a week that never costs more than 19 to exchange for. I hope someone else can enlighten us all.


----------



## Judy

vckempson said:


> We're still talking about different things.  If I deposit my week 26 today, I get 27 TPU.  I can also go online today and book the exact same week 26 for only 7 points.  So we're talking about a huge difference in TPU deposit value vs booking cost at the exact same point in time.


Sounds good to me   If this is happening across the board, it means that we can get more in exchange than the value of our deposited week, in other words, we can trade up. Imagine the uproar if it were the other way around :ignore:


----------



## Carolinian

Those are not RCI's only considerations these days.  Another is their rental empire and how these weeks may play into that.  A big factor is also their pandering to big developers in sales, essentially overpointing such inventory to butter up the developer to get all those new members for RCI.  They are using members trade values as a loss leaders to gain new membership $$ for themselves.  Vacation Village at Parkways is one of the clearest examples of that.  RCI employee Bootleg, a much respected former Tugger who bailed out of online formums when things got hot after the lawsuit, told us that Vacation Village at Parkway was the single resort that consistently had the biggest oversupply of deposits in the whole RCI system.




vckempson said:


> I've pondered this before and wondered what situations lead to this TPU value differential.I have a forthcoming new purchase at Vacation Village Prkwy in Orlando that if I deposit now, it's worth 27 TPU's but I can book the same week on RCI for 7 TPU's.
> 
> Remember, though, that RCI makes money only on booked exchanges.  We always think of supply and demand as a single calculation, but for RCI it may really be two separate equations.  For my orlando week over the 4th of July, RCI can probably book all they can get there hands on but the booking market will only bear 7 TPU's because of all the other competition out there.  On the other hand, they have to entice enough owners to deposit their weeks to keep the supply available, hence the higher deposit value.  I'm curious what other situations exist like this.  Maybe it's almost always like this with the only thing in question being the size of the differential.


----------



## bnoble

Yes, I have seen it.  It cuts both ways---the deposit could be worth more than the exchange, or it could be worth less.  I suspect two things at play.  First, there seems to be some averaging going on for deposits; they are much more "static" in value than exchanges.  This is probably just to keep people from going nuts watching deposit values change nearly daily.  Second, I suspect that RCI could be giving more credits out on average than they charge (to account for spoilage and to increase exchange traffic).  I suppose it is also likely that RCI gives out *fewer* credits on average than they charge, but it seems to fail Occam's Razor.  The main motivation for that would be to support rentals, and it's not like they've ever needed such an excuse before---they rent whatever they please, just because.

Edited to add: for my intervals, for the most part, the deposit is worth more than the exchange, on average.  But, that's such a small sample that it is hard to draw any firm conclusions.


----------



## krmlaw

yes ive deposited and see it for 13 points less on a trade!


----------



## Carolinian

Vacation Village at Parkway, given the corruption of its RCI Points values, the reputation of its developer as being extremely tight with RCI, and Bootleg's description of it as the resort with constantly the biggest oversupply in the entire RCI system, was a key resort that prior to the rollout of Points Lite I posted that I would be watching closely as a key to the honesty of RCI's numbers racket.  Well it did not disappoint.  It clearly points to the corruption of the entire system.  Tuggers have been finding lots of examples of VV@P having significantly higher numbers in than out, but I have yet to see the post showing it the other way and do not expect to.  The numbers offered for trade are the true values at this resort, and those offered for deposits are overpointing to pander to the developer.




bnoble said:


> Yes, I have seen it.  It cuts both ways---the deposit could be worth more than the exchange, or it could be worth less.  I suspect two things at play.  First, there seems to be some averaging going on for deposits; they are much more "static" in value than exchanges.  This is probably just to keep people from going nuts watching deposit values change nearly daily.  Second, I suspect that RCI could be giving more credits out on average than they charge (to account for spoilage and to increase exchange traffic).  I suppose it is also likely that RCI gives out *fewer* credits on average than they charge, but it seems to fail Occam's Razor.  The main motivation for that would be to support rentals, and it's not like they've ever needed such an excuse before---they rent whatever they please, just because.
> 
> Edited to add: for my intervals, for the most part, the deposit is worth more than the exchange, on average.  But, that's such a small sample that it is hard to draw any firm conclusions.


----------



## sandkastle4966

I have the same thing (give me more than it takes to get in).  It has been this way since the start of TPUs.

The unit is  very high demand with little deposits.  Owners use or rent their weeks.  I look at it as "a reward" to me for depositing the very high demand week.


----------



## vckempson

Being that I just bought into VV at Pkwy for the TUP values I get, I should keep an eye out on the resort development and have an exit plan.  When should I look to bail out?  

If the books are cooked for the TPU's then I guess I should try to get out, (sell or give away) as they get toward the end of selling their inventory?  Since I have a fixed 4th of July week, it might actually be possible to sell it for a little bit.  I only paid $ 1 so I can give it away and break even.  

Anyone know how much they have left to sell or if they are builiding any new units?


----------



## ronandjoan

ronandjoan said:


> Yep!  I deposited a week over a year ago and when the TPU's came out it was a 14.  Unfortunately, I didn;t get a print out  of the page - would it make a differnence? - and then later it dropped to a 12.  I am VERY unhappy!
> 
> !



Well, guess I misunderstood the OP too, but my previously deposited week DID drop in value!


----------



## bnoble

> Unfortunately, I didn;t get a print out of the page - would it make a differnence? - and then later it dropped to a 12.


Yes, it would have made a difference.  I had a similar situation, and when I was able to forward evidence of the higher valuation, my deposit was adjusted back up.


----------



## chriskre

lgreenspan said:


> Maybe I was not clear in my previous post. RCI actually gave me 36 points as the website deposit calculator said. Now when I look on RCIs website I can trade back into my deposit for 29 pts. I am not complaining. I was just curious why.



There are many who for some reason like to complain about this good fortune.  I personally have not a clue what all the fuss is about.  
RCI is giving you the option to do another exchange with the leftovers if you so choose.  You don't have to use the leftovers but if you want to use the leftovers they're there for you.  I think it's the same as what II does with their AC's and XYZ's.  If you want to use it it's there for you and if you don't they just expire.  They just don't put a point value on those weeks but it's essentially the same thing.  

Yes the exchange companies want you to do another exchange.  They are afterall, an exchange company and for the most part still make quite a bit of money with their members exchanges despite their rental business.   



vckempson said:


> In my case, they'll give me 27 TPU's to deposit and I could then book the same week through RCI for 7 TPU.  Why such a discrepency is the question.



Because RCI wants you to pay them more money doing exchanges.  It's not rocket science.  Some of us tend to complicate this wayyyyyy too much.   



Carolinian said:


> Vacation Village at Parkway, given the corruption of its RCI Points values, the reputation of its developer as being extremely tight with RCI, and Bootleg's description of it as the resort with constantly the biggest oversupply in the entire RCI system, was a key resort that prior to the rollout of Points Lite I posted that I would be watching closely as a key to the honesty of RCI's numbers racket.  Well it did not disappoint.  It clearly points to the corruption of the entire system.  Tuggers have been finding lots of examples of VV@P having significantly higher numbers in than out, but I have yet to see the post showing it the other way and do not expect to.  The numbers offered for trade are the true values at this resort, and those offered for deposits are overpointing to pander to the developer.



And pandering to their owners.   
I for one don't really care what their motivation is for overpointing, as being an owner has allowed me to practically live at the beach with the instant exchanges raiding weeks.  
Is it fair?  Probably not but I didn't make the rules.  I just exploit them.  
Isn't that the fun of being a member of TUG?  Learning how to leverage the different systems?    :ignore: 

Companies make these deals all the time.  What is the difference between what RCI does with overpointing and what SFX and II does with AC's and XYZ's?  Truly it's just another way to extract exchange fees and no one is forcing anyone to exchange in the first place.


----------



## Carolinian

Well, your taking advantage of RCI's misdeeds is no worse than my doing so by using their cheap rentals, which also ripoff the system.

However, there are also the underpointings, and once people understand they are getting hosed, they will quit giving their weeks to RCI.  I used to give at least one of my summer England weeks to RCI, and if I got a good exchange quickly, perhaps even the other one, too.  Now one goes to SFX and the other to DAE.

As of yesterday, the England - No Canalboats category in RCI had zero summer (June, July, August) availibility for either 2011 or 2012, and for 2011 they did not even have canalboats.  VV@Parkway had plenty, as they always do.  My UK resort had a grand total of one week availible for the next two years, which was a winter week, and that likely will soon be gone.  VV@Parkway had 630+, which by itself was almost as many weeks as RCI had availible at ALL 183 resorts in South Africa COMBINED.  RCI has stood supply and demand on their head with its corrupt numbers racket in both Points and Points Lite.  Resorts that have been hosed should start seriously rattling RCI's cage, threatening to switch to II and to actively promote use of independents, and they need to be holding up VV@Parkway as Exhibit A of the corruption of RCI's valuation system.


----------



## vckempson

While you're probably correct Carolinian, availability only speaks to supply, not demand.   If I go to the grocery story and find 6 feet of shelf space top to bottom with Coca Cola, and only a 12 inch space on one shelf for RC cola, does that mean there's an oversupply with no demand for coke vs the opposite for RC Cola?  I don't think so.  If you think of RCI like the grocery store, sales volume and turnover is everything.


----------



## tombo

vckempson said:


> While you're probably correct Carolinian, availability only speaks to supply, not demand.   If I go to the grocery story and find 6 feet of shelf space top to bottom with Coca Cola, and only a 12 inch space on one shelf for RC cola, does that mean there's an oversupply with no demand for coke vs the opposite for RC Cola?  I don't think so.  If you think of RCI like the grocery store, sales volume and turnover is everything.



Great analogy.:whoopie:

 I might go to Orlando in the next few years. I will go to New York and the Caribbean in the next few years. I will hopefully return to Hawaii in the next few years. I will not be going to England, France, or South Africa in the next decade. If there is one week available in England, France, South Africa, or anywhere in Europe for the entire 2011 to 2020 time frame, that is oversupply to me. 

Just to prove a point save some of those rare single weeks currently available in South Africa and England and check on them from time to time. Most of the weeks available today in England and South Africa will still be available for exchange next month, and the next. When there is only one available week at a resort, and it is not exchanged for for weeks or months, that is a sign of low supply, but even lower demand.

For comparison check on Florida beach weeks and Orlando weeks at resorts where there is only one or two weeks available and see how long it lasts before someone grabs it. Many are gone in a day or two. Some are gone as soon as they show up. Now that is low supply and high demand.


----------



## Carolinian

Where you or I, or any other person, likes to go is of no consequence to supply and demand in the system.  Demand is based on the totality of demand in the system from timesharers all over the world, including South Africans wanting to go to South Africa, Europeans wanting to go to South Africa, Europeans wanting to go elsewhere in Europe, etc.  Yes, there will always be some people for whom kitsch Europe at Epcot, and kitsch Africa at Disney's Animal World are sufficient, but many want to see the world outside Orlando.

As to South Africa, there are 183 RCI resorts there and enough exchange activity to justify a seperate RCI office dedicated to that one country.  When RCI rolled out Points Lite, two of the popular resorts there with US owners, Dikhololo and Mount Amanzi had no availibility.  Now after six weeks since 2012 deposits were opened, with many Tuggers reporting the deposits hitting their RCI accounts, there are only 7 availibiities at Dikhololo and 9 at Mount Amanzi.  In all 183 resorts in South Africa, there are only 650 availibilities.  That is roughly the same as the 630+ weeks availible at Vacation Village at Parkway, ONE resort!  VV@P ALWAYS has hundreds of weeks availible.  As one Tugger pointed out, RCI was giving 50 points lite for one week there but only charging 10 to trade in to the very same week, over a year out.  The value of 10 is what that week was really worth, with the extra 40 being inflated value.  But the availibilty charts in the European version of thr RCI Directory really tell the tale.  They show South Africa having a much better supply / demand curve than Orlando.

As to England, the winter weeks at the hard to get resorts usually do not last long.  My resort usually shows no availibility at all.  When I have deposited my summer weeks with any exchange company, they have never hit inventory, as they immediately went to ongoing requests.

Arguing that Orlando is not overbuilt in timeshare is a bit like arguing that the world is not round.




tombo said:


> Great analogy.:whoopie:
> 
> I might go to Orlando in the next few years. I will go to New York and the Caribbean in the next few years. I will hopefully return to Hawaii in the next few years. I will not be going to England, France, or South Africa in the next decade. If there is one week available in England, France, South Africa, or anywhere in Europe for the entire 2011 to 2020 time frame, that is oversupply to me.
> 
> Just to prove a point save some of those rare single weeks currently available in South Africa and England and check on them from time to time. Most of the weeks available today in England and South Africa will still be available for exchange next month, and the next. When there is only one available week at a resort, and it is not exchanged for for weeks or months, that is a sign of low supply, but even lower demand.
> 
> For comparison check on Florida beach weeks and Orlando weeks at resorts where there is only one or two weeks available and see how long it lasts before someone grabs it. Many are gone in a day or two. Some are gone as soon as they show up. Now that is low supply and high demand.


----------



## Carolinian

vckempson said:


> While you're probably correct Carolinian, availability only speaks to supply, not demand.   If I go to the grocery story and find 6 feet of shelf space top to bottom with Coca Cola, and only a 12 inch space on one shelf for RC cola, does that mean there's an oversupply with no demand for coke vs the opposite for RC Cola?  I don't think so.  If you think of RCI like the grocery store, sales volume and turnover is everything.



Sorry, but availibility speaks to both.  If you can't find something that there have been deposits of, then demand has exceeded supply.  No matter what the volume overall, if there is more supply than demand, then that is a weaker trader.  If demand exceeds supply, it is a strong trader.  That is, if a system is based on supply and demand rather than insider deals.

A retail store is not a good analogy for a timeshare exchange company in the first place.  A retail store orders its own stock with its own money based on its own experience as to demand.  A timeshare exchange company takes whatever deposits members make, which may often not match what expected demand may be, and they try to balance that in some way, such as with trading power. A timeshare exchange company, using your analogy, might get two bottles of RC deposited for an expected demand of 12 inches of space, five and a half feet top to bottom of shelf space of Coke deposited for an expected demand of six feet top to bottom, and twenty feet of Pepsi top to bottom deposited for expected demand of six feet top to bottom.  The real value of each in an exchange system would be based on the relationship of supply (deposits) to demand (exchange requests).


----------



## vckempson

OK so I'm RCI and I get 10 Mt Amanzi's a quarter and I book 9 exchanges, maybe all 10.   At the same time I get 400 VV at Pkwy and only book exchanges on 350 of them.   Now mind you, I make my money off of the $179 exchange fee.  You're telling me that the Mt Amanzi is more valuable than the VV at Pkwy to RCI, who's setting the TPU values.  I don't think so.

I have my own business, and I'd be out of business if I applied your logic.  BTW I own 3 Mt Amanzi's and would love for you to be right but it defies business logic.   Now as to why we only see 9 Mt Amanzi's in the system, I don't know.  I'm not clear as to the coordination of RCI and RCI South Africa.  I didn't think we're all looking at the same inventory.  Aren't most of our South African deposits sent over to RCI SA and with a few kept in the US system for exchanges.


----------



## tedk

Someone who lives in South Africa was going to book me a week in South Africa for this May, when i finally saw the week on-line i told them to book it for me. Problem was they could not see it it on-line, so what i see in the UK they did not in South Africa. So i had to book it myself and  the inventory we all see is obviously not the same.


----------



## chriskre

tedk said:


> Someone who lives in South Africa was going to book me a week in South Africa for this May, when i finally saw the week on-line i told them to book it for me. Problem was they could not see it it on-line, so what i see in the UK they did not in South Africa. So i had to book it myself and  the inventory we all see is obviously not the same.



Did you try calling them to see if they could book it for you.  I think the vacation guides can pull inventory from the other systems.  I know I've had guides pull stuff from the points side to do an exchange that I did not see online but was on the weeks side.  Maybe it's the same with the different continents.  I'm just guessing but wondering if it's a possibility.  Worth calling.


----------



## Carolinian

vckempson said:


> OK so I'm RCI and I get 10 Mt Amanzi's a quarter and I book 9 exchanges, maybe all 10.   At the same time I get 400 VV at Pkwy and only book exchanges on 350 of them.   Now mind you, I make my money off of the $179 exchange fee.  You're telling me that the Mt Amanzi is more valuable than the VV at Pkwy to RCI, who's setting the TPU values.  I don't think so.
> 
> I have my own business, and I'd be out of business if I applied your logic.  BTW I own 3 Mt Amanzi's and would love for you to be right but it defies business logic.   Now as to why we only see 9 Mt Amanzi's in the system, I don't know.  I'm not clear as to the coordination of RCI and RCI South Africa.  I didn't think we're all looking at the same inventory.  Aren't most of our South African deposits sent over to RCI SA and with a few kept in the US system for exchanges.



What we are talking about is relative value for exchange purposes.  A rare deposit, that is hard to get, in any honest system, is more valuable than one that is a dime a dozen.  Bootleg, highly respected former Tugger and RCI employee, told us that VV@Parkway was the resort with the largest oversupply of any resort in the RCI system.  In an honest system, their values would be low.  The week that another Tugger pointed out at VV@P where RCI was giving 50 points lite for a deposit but only charging 10 points lite to exchange in to the very same week indicates that 10 is the real value and RCI inflates in by 40 further points lite, and that very simply corrupts the system.  I know you own there and consequently like the idea of such corruption continuing, but other resorts need to call them out on it, and to move to II or elsewhere if such corruption continues.

In an honest system, there are many blue weeks in the UK that would be worth more than many pink weeks in Orlando, because they are much harder to exchange into.


----------



## tombo

Carolinian said:


> What we are talking about is relative value for exchange purposes.  A rare deposit, that is hard to get, in any honest system, is more valuable than one that is a dime a dozen.  Bootleg, highly respected former Tugger and RCI employee, told us that VV@Parkway was the resort with the largest oversupply of any resort in the RCI system.  In an honest system, their values would be low.  The week that another Tugger pointed out at VV@P where RCI was giving 50 points lite for a deposit but only charging 10 points lite to exchange in to the very same week indicates that 10 is the real value and RCI inflates in by 40 further points lite, and that very simply corrupts the system.  I know you own there and consequently like the idea of such corruption continuing, but other resorts need to call them out on it, and to move to II or elsewhere if such corruption continues.
> 
> .



Yes swap to an honest group like II that doesn't have special deals worked out with certain resorts. Did you forget the specal relationship marriott has with II? Marriott gets whatever they want from II, and owners at other resorts get to exchange for Marriott weeks after Marriott owners have picked through them. Marriott owners often get 2 weeks for one week deposited. Marriott tells II what they want II to do and II does it. 

Why does this not offend you? Why no outrage? If RCI is "crooked" for giving a special deal to VV pkwy, why is II not "crooked" for giving a special deal to Marriott? 

Give us a break. I quit II years ago because I was sick of being a second class member since I didn't own a Marriott. Then I purchased a Marriott and joined II again ready to be a valued member. Before I could take adavantage of the special status Marriott members enjoy in II Marriott lanched their points and then announced their spin off of the timeshare division. I sold my Marriott and quit II again.

Many corporations have "partners" in business that they have a special relationship with. Open a credit card bill, your phone bill, etc, etc, and see what other company's flyer and special offers stuffed into the envelope. It is not crooked or illegal, it is a business relationship where each agrees to promote the other to benefit both.

I don't agree with the values assigned to VV at Parkway but it is not crooked. Anyone who wants to can buy a week at VV Pkwy CHEAP on e-bay and take advantage of the deal. Every member of RCI can see what values are assigned to each and every resort and decide to deposit or not. 

As Michael Coley said it is what it is. Work the program to your advantage, quit RCI in disgust, or complain endlessly. Most of us here on TUG chose to work the system to our advantage. Some chose to quit RCI. EVERYONE here knows what you chose to do.


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> in any honest system


Who said it was honest or fair?  It is what it is, and you can either work the system or complain about it.  The 2010 changes make it much more transparent and easier to get the most out of.


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


> Who said it was honest or fair?  It is what it is, and you can either work the system or complain about it.  The 2010 changes make it much more transparent and easier to get the most out of.



Well, no, you left out the best option, which is to use other systems, and most effectively, a mix of other systems, and to help educate others that there are better options out there.  And it really takes more than just doing something as an individual.  We need to be proactive and encourage our HOA's to educate their members about their options with other exchange companies, and also encourage our HOA's to call RCI out on their dishonest valuations.

The 2010 changes are a mixed bag, which I know you may never comes to grips with.  Yes, for some people in some circumstances, there are some benefits from the 2010 changes, but for many others the moving of the goal posts in changing valuation of weeks plus the elimination of the trading within a range, a feature of the old system that for many was far more valuable than ''change back'' or combining weeks left a net change that was more bad than good.  It will vary in individual circumstances.  A poll on another site, showed that half the respondants now had to give RCI more than one week to get trades they used to get one-for-one while the other half could still get the same trades they used to get one for one.  One poster now has to give RCI FOUR WEEKS to get trades he had been getting one for one for 20 years.

One size does not fit all.  This site is NOT about learning to use RCI or RCI's new system.  It is about getting the most out of timesharing, and with RCI's changes, for many that may not even involve RCI any more.

Quite frankly, when I have a choice between a system that is honest and fair and one that is not, I know which one I am going to prefer!

What the partial transparency (value number only but not how it was concocted) has done is create an incentive that was not there previously for cooking the books in favor of insider resorts like VV@P.  When the numbers were not published, there was no incentive to do this.  That is certainly one downside of the new system, and one that could be corrected by full transparency.  But, then again, it is not at all surprising that a group of posters mostly with Orlando connections stridently opposes full transparency.  The seriously fudged numbers at VV@P are a good illustration why.


----------



## rapmarks

I am having a problem with getting the transfer of ownership to my name.  Meanwhile, i have weeks booked with the new ownership, but still cannot deposit with RCI and they are losing tps while I wait.  so i am wondering what the other exchange systems do with deposits that are not made far in advance, wht is their cut off date to get value for a deposit.


----------



## vckempson

From RCI's own web site, here are the factors that determine TPU deposit values. 

_"Deposit Trading Power is a value assigned to your vacation week upon its deposit with RCI. Your Deposit Trading Power is determined by the following components:

The Supply, Demand, Utilization and Classification for your specific Deposit, resort and region."_

Notice that it's not *exclusively supply and demand.*   So what's the 3rd item?  Why, it's *utilization*!

So what is utilization?  In their own words, it's _"How many weeks like yours have been confirmed by other members in the past?" _ Sounds surprisingly like volume and turnover to me.  "I think I'll skip the RC cola and have another Coke please."

I'm also guessing that the supply demand factors are based on each RCI division, not globally.  BTW, a company's first priority is to make a profit.  And as Tombo pointed out, all businesses have preferred partnerships, because it's in their financial interest to develop them.  Anyway, I really don't care how or why RCI does what they do, as long as I'm able to exploit the inefficiency of the system to my benefit.  There, I said it.  I'm a greedy SOB who's looking out for numero uno, me.  Whether anyone else admits it or not, they do too.


----------



## chriskre

MichaelColey said:


> Who said it was honest or fair?  It is what it is, and you can either work the system or complain about it.  The 2010 changes make it much more transparent and easier to get the most out of.



And for those of us who wanna stay in the Mouses house we've got Disney's blessing to come "home" whatever way we can get in.  No discrimination anymore so Mugwump Swamp owners and Gold crown elitists are all welcome.  Isn't this a wonderful country.   




Carolinian said:


> Well, no, you left out the best option, which is to use other systems, and most effectively, a mix of other systems, and to help educate others that there are better options out there.............
> 
> One size does not fit all.  This site is NOT about learning to use RCI or RCI's new system.  It is about getting the most out of timesharing, and with RCI's changes, for many that may not even involve RCI any more.
> 
> What the partial transparency (value number only but not how it was concocted) has done is create an incentive that was not there previously for cooking the books in favor of insider resorts like VV@P.  When the numbers were not published, there was no incentive to do this.  That is certainly one downside of the new system, and one that could be corrected by full transparency.  But, then again, it is not at all surprising that a group of posters mostly with Orlando connections stridently opposes full transparency.  The seriously fudged numbers at VV@P are a good illustration why.



I agree with you that it's good to talk about alternatives to RCI and I so appreciate the TUG community for educating me on the other systems but still for me RCI has the most resorts in the most places that I want to go to.  Yes it's nice owning the mini's and I'm so grateful to all who taught me about them but RCI still gets the majority of my exchange dollars cause like it or not they seem to dominate my market and that's okay by me.   

It's the Same with American Airlines.  I can fly direct on AA or I can go out of my way and do 3 stops on my way anywhere to use an alternate airline like Delta but why would I do that?  AA may dominate my market and may not be the cheapest seat I can find but they sure make my life easy by going to all the places that I want to go and for a price that I can live with.  

I liken this relationship to my relationship with RCI.  They still offer the easiest way to a vacation for a price that I can live comfortably with.  Sorry for the little guys   ,but it is what it is and I'm not staying home sulking just so they can't make any money off of me.  No I'm outta here and monthly if I can swing it.   

As for Transparency at VV P, they have been selling RCI points for years now and those numbers were out there way before the TPU's got started.  That's why I jumped on that bandwagon early cause if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
I don't see that they're doing anything even remotely illegal, besides some of us actually would rather go to the Mouses's House than to any resort in South Africa.   

Just search for Disney ex-ops vs. South African ones and see where the majority of TUggers wanna go.  I'm just sayin....... 





vckempson said:


> There, I said it.  I'm a greedy SOB who's looking out for numero uno, me.  Whether anyone else admits it or not, they do too.



You're not alone at all despite what many will admit.   
The one for one system was also exploiting RCI's inefficiencies so I just don't get it.  At least now we have some numbers to make our decisions with instead of trying to buy that "tiger trader" which for me seemed to be so elusive.


----------



## Carolinian

As an owner there, I guess you can rationalize it any way you want to, and interpret things any way you want, but at the end of the day, an exchange company that gives 50 points lite for a deposit of a week over a year awasy that they are willing to give as an exchange for only 10 points lite is putting their thumb on the scales in a manner that corrupts their entire exchange system. 




vckempson said:


> From RCI's own web site, here are the factors that determine TPU deposit values.
> 
> _"Deposit Trading Power is a value assigned to your vacation week upon its deposit with RCI. Your Deposit Trading Power is determined by the following components:
> 
> The Supply, Demand, Utilization and Classification for your specific Deposit, resort and region."_
> 
> Notice that it's not *exclusively supply and demand.*   So what's the 3rd item?  Why, it's *utilization*!
> 
> So what is utilization?  In their own words, it's _"How many weeks like yours have been confirmed by other members in the past?" _ Sounds surprisingly like volume and turnover to me.  "I think I'll skip the RC cola and have another Coke please."
> 
> I'm also guessing that the supply demand factors are based on each RCI division, not globally.  BTW, a company's first priority is to make a profit.  And as Tombo pointed out, all businesses have preferred partnerships, because it's in their financial interest to develop them.  Anyway, I really don't care how or why RCI does what they do, as long as I'm able to exploit the inefficiency of the system to my benefit.  There, I said it.  I'm a greedy SOB who's looking out for numero uno, me.  Whether anyone else admits it or not, they do too.


----------



## ajmace

*The new RCI 'system'*

I find the new RCI 'system' much clearer than the old one.
At least you can now see ALL the weeks available and what they 'cost'.

It was always an illusion that a 'tiger' trader would pull you the resorts and times you wanted.

RCI can only supply weeks that members are prepared to deposit with them.
The truth about Summer weeks in the UK is that they are very rare indeed, and probably always were.

I consider RCI to be the best timeshare organisation.


----------



## Carolinian

ajmace said:


> I find the new RCI 'system' much clearer than the old one.
> At least you can now see ALL the weeks available and what they 'cost'.
> 
> It was always an illusion that a 'tiger' trader would pull you the resorts and times you wanted.
> 
> RCI can only supply weeks that members are prepared to deposit with them.
> The truth about Summer weeks in the UK is that they are very rare indeed, and probably always were.
> 
> I consider RCI to be the best timeshare organisation.



So those very rare weeks should be priced lower than the dime-a-dozen weeks at overbuilt Vacation Village at Parkway in overbuilt Orlando?  Value relationships like that make RCI ''best''?


----------



## chalee94

Carolinian said:


> So those very rare weeks should be priced lower than the dime-a-dozen weeks at overbuilt Vacation Village at Parkway in overbuilt Orlando?  Value relationships like that make RCI ''best''?



i guess at least they are willing to show you where they put their thumb on the scale...


----------



## ajmace

*a transparent system- well done RCI*

Thanks to the last poster.
RCI does at least give everyone a view of how they rate all of their weeks.
You may not not agree but at least you can see what it is!

Well done RCI.


----------



## Carolinian

Of course, if it were fully transparent, instead of only partially transparent, they could no longer put their thumb on the scale, which would be much better.  To be fully transparent they need to end the practice of hiding the method of selling these values  And a non-transparent system gives no incentive in the first place to put their thumb on the scales for developers.

What it also does is give those who are losing out an incentive to get out.  Some of the knowledgable ones will do so to other exchange companies, but the danger to timesharing is those who simply want to dump their weeks after getting screwed in Points Lite.  According to a resort manager I talked to, they have had a lot of such called since RCI imposed Points Lite.  Indeed, RCI just sent out a survey, which I got asking why I was not exchanging with them lately, with a lot of follow up questions dealing with Points Lite that really pointed to RCI concluding that they were losing a lot of exchange business since Points Lite came in.  That was very clear from the design of the survey.




ajmace said:


> Thanks to the last poster.
> RCI does at least give everyone a view of how they rate all of their weeks.
> You may not not agree but at least you can see what it is!
> 
> Well done RCI.


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> So those very rare weeks should be priced lower than the dime-a-dozen weeks at overbuilt Vacation Village at Parkway in overbuilt Orlando?  Value relationships like that make RCI ''best''?



I was a bit worried about this "Cozy Relationship" and possibly needing an exit plan for my VV at Pkwy before this friendly relationship ended.  After checking carefully, though, I found that VV at Prkwy is right in line with all other Orlando resorts.  

I took the *worst* reviewed Orlando Resort from our TUG Reviews and checked the TPU's for the same week as my VV at Pkwy.  "Lifetime of Vacations at Grandview", has a TUG rating of 4.35, and for their 1 bdrm over the 4th of July, it got about 30 TPU's vs my 33.    BTW, VV at Pkwy has a TUG review rating of 8.06.  Maybe VV at Pkwy is the one being shortchanged?

Checking the 10 resorts from the reviews that were above and below the VV at Prky review rankings, I found that they ranged from about 30 to 35 TPU's for a 1 bdrm over the 4th of July.  VV at Pkwy is smack dab in the middle of their Orlando peers. 

Apparently, contrary to everything that's been said, there is *absolutely NO factual basis* to suggest that VV at Pkwy is getting any preferential treatment.  If you can find TPU values at *any* other Orlando resorts to suggest otherwise, then I'd like to know.  The actual TPU values are available to all of you on the RCI web site, if you think otherwise.

So, how do I manage to get 65 TPU's for my unit.  It's not rocket science.  No,  it's a lockoff that can be split into two 1 bdrm units.  Silver Lake also has lockoff's with pretty much the same resulting TPU's.  There were a couple other lockoff's on Orlando and they each almost doubled the total TPU's by splitting the deposit into two 1 bdrm units.  

So much for that *cozy relationship* hypothesis.  I guess I no longer need an exit plan.


----------



## Carolinian

Sorry to disappoint you, but ratings on TUG have nothing to do with the value of a week in an exchange system.  It is based on supply and demand.  VV@P has the biggest oversupply in the entire RCI system, according to a respected Tugger who works for RCI.  The last time I checked this one resort had about the same number of availibilities as the entire country of South Africa which has almost 200 resorts, for example.  VV@P ALWAYS has gobs of availibility and that is the huge red flag that it is overpointed.





vckempson said:


> I was a bit worried about this "Cozy Relationship" and possibly needing an exit plan for my VV at Pkwy before this friendly relationship ended.  After checking carefully, though, I found that VV at Prkwy is right in line with all other Orlando resorts.
> 
> I took the *worst* reviewed Orlando Resort from our TUG Reviews and checked the TPU's for the same week as my VV at Pkwy.  "Lifetime of Vacations at Grandview", has a TUG rating of 4.35, and for their 1 bdrm over the 4th of July, it got about 30 TPU's vs my 33.    BTW, VV at Pkwy has a TUG review rating of 8.06.  Maybe VV at Pkwy is the one being shortchanged?
> 
> Checking the 10 resorts from the reviews that were above and below the VV at Prky review rankings, I found that they ranged from about 30 to 35 TPU's for a 1 bdrm over the 4th of July.  VV at Pkwy is smack dab in the middle of their Orlando peers.
> 
> Apparently, contrary to everything that's been said, there is *absolutely NO factual basis* to suggest that VV at Pkwy is getting any preferential treatment.  If you can find TPU values at *any* other Orlando resorts to suggest otherwise, then I'd like to know.  The actual TPU values are available to all of you on the RCI web site, if you think otherwise.
> 
> So, how do I manage to get 65 TPU's for my unit.  It's not rocket science.  No,  it's a lockoff that can be split into two 1 bdrm units.  Silver Lake also has lockoff's with pretty much the same resulting TPU's.  There were a couple other lockoff's on Orlando and they each almost doubled the total TPU's by splitting the deposit into two 1 bdrm units.
> 
> So much for that *cozy relationship* hypothesis.  I guess I no longer need an exit plan.


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> Of course, if it were fully transparent, instead of only partially transparent, they could no longer put their thumb on the scale, which would be much better.  To be fully transparent they need to end the practice of hiding the method of selling these values  And a non-transparent system gives no incentive in the first place to put their thumb on the scales for developers.



They're about as transparent as they can be.  Just because you don't like how they do it, doesn't mean it's not transparent. 

Once again, with more feeling.  TPU's are based on 1. Supply 2. Demand 3. Utilization (as in Volume of successful trades from deposit like yours), and 4. Classification (Resort, boat or RV).  This is directly from their "Understanding the New Weeks Enhancements" on the web site.  I know you don't believe that volume should be a factor, but it is; articulated in all it's glorious transparency on RCI's very own web site.  And while Orlando may an easy trade, it's also a very high volume location for RCI traders, thus rewarded handsomely, it would appear.


----------



## timeos2

vckempson said:


> They're about as transparent as they can be.  Just because you don't like how they do it, doesn't mean it's not transparent.
> 
> Once again, with more feeling.  TPU's are based on 1. Supply 2. Demand 3. Utilization (as in Volume of successful trades from deposit like yours), and 4. Classification (Resort, boat or RV).  This is directly from their "Understanding the New Weeks Enhancements" on the web site.  I know you don't believe that volume should be a factor, but it is; articulated in all it's glorious transparency on RCI's very own web site.  And while Orlando may an easy trade, it's also a very high volume location for RCI traders, thus rewarded handsomely, it would appear.



Some seem to think that because they want to go to an area or the amount of deposits are limited it automatically becomes far more valuable. In reality RCI looks at what they can get for the time they are given, assign values that will move the inventory in the greatest quantity and move on. They do not sit back & "overpoint" a resort or area as it does no good for them or anyone else to do that.  But it makes fr a great conspiracy theory and a reason for relatively low demand time, even if it is limited in quantity, to appear to be "undervalued".  If they were truly undervalued then they wouldn't be siting there to take - they be gobbled up quicker than they are posted. Instead the true value is what RCI gives it and those  that want it pay. The desire for Europe frm Americam travelers simply isn't as high in gross numbers as a well liked location on the States will be. People just don't travel that far that often but will take the lower cost, closer trip many times if they can.  Supply and demand - real demand not what you THINK it should be - set the values. It does RCI no good to cook up unreasonable ones as it would only hurt them in the long run.


----------



## Carolinian

When they don't give you the basis for their values, they are not being transparent.  Now we can compare Points Lite with award status.  In the later is fully transparent.  They publish the formula with all the required numbers, so we know how it is done, and they give each resort their exact numbers monthly.  That is transparent.  With the Points Lite values, we do not know either the formula or the numbers from the resorts.  That is NON-transparent.

They can tell you anything they want, but with no formula and no numbers it is meaningless.  Besides, we can look at the rare weeks out there, and in a lot of places other than just summer UK, and compare them to dime-a-dozen weeks where there is constantly an oversupply, and when the values are reversed from what common sense tells you they should be based on observable supply and demand from what is in the RCI system, then they are not being honest when they tell you what their numbers are based on.

Tell you what, do you happen to be a coin collector?  I will be happy to send you a brignt shiny uncirculated 2010 Lincoln cent for your 1909-S VDB Lincoln cent and it only has to be in About Good condition.




vckempson said:


> They're about as transparent as they can be.  Just because you don't like how they do it, doesn't mean it's not transparent.
> 
> Once again, with more feeling.  TPU's are based on 1. Supply 2. Demand 3. Utilization (as in Volume of successful trades from deposit like yours), and 4. Classification (Resort, boat or RV).  This is directly from their "Understanding the New Weeks Enhancements" on the web site.  I know you don't believe that volume should be a factor, but it is; articulated in all it's glorious transparency on RCI's very own web site.  And while Orlando may an easy trade, it's also a very high volume location for RCI traders, thus rewarded handsomely, it would appear.


----------



## Carolinian

When RCI, at the identical point in time, is giving 50 points lite for a deposit of a certain week at a resort, but only charging 10 points lite for an exchange into the very same week, yes they are overpointing that resort.  That is exactly what Tuggers found at VV@Parkway.  Bootleg, an RCI employee who established great credibility on these boards told us that VV@P was the resort with the largest oversupply in the entire RCI system.

Demand is based on the totality of the RCI system from all members in all countries, not the number of Americans who want to go to the UK, or Phillipinos who want to go to Orlando, or Hungarians who want to go to New Zealand.

RCI clearly has other things in its agenda than giving fair exchanges.  Rentals is one.  Buttering up developers is another.  I know for a fact that developers politick RCI for numbers as I had an exec at Barrier Island Station explain to me how they were going about it to get the RCI Points numbers they wanted.

Those from overbuilt areas have always opposed full transparency, because they know if they had to go by an objective formula and all values were known that their areas would be in the toilet on trading power.  For decades, any blue week from anywhere would trade into Orlando much of the year because the real value of an overbuilt area is about like the real value of a blue week, something owners in overbuilt areas just do not want to comprehend.  If I were in their shoes, I would probably oppose full transparency, too.




timeos2 said:


> Some seem to think that because they want to go to an area or the amount of deposits are limited it automatically becomes far more valuable. In reality RCI looks at what they can get for the time they are given, assign values that will move the inventory in the greatest quantity and move on. They do not sit back & "overpoint" a resort or area as it does no good for them or anyone else to do that.  But it makes fr a great conspiracy theory and a reason for relatively low demand time, even if it is limited in quantity, to appear to be "undervalued".  If they were truly undervalued then they wouldn't be siting there to take - they be gobbled up quicker than they are posted. Instead the true value is what RCI gives it and those  that want it pay. The desire for Europe frm Americam travelers simply isn't as high in gross numbers as a well liked location on the States will be. People just don't travel that far that often but will take the lower cost, closer trip many times if they can.  Supply and demand - real demand not what you THINK it should be - set the values. It does RCI no good to cook up unreasonable ones as it would only hurt them in the long run.


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> Tell you what, do you happen to be a coin collector?  I will be happy to send you a brignt shiny uncirculated 2010 Lincoln cent for your 1909-S VDB Lincoln cent and it only has to be in About Good condition.



Trade Point's aren't money, and the middle man's (RCI's) profit isn't the spread between bid and ask, it's the volume of the trades.  I'm a stock broker and I know full and well about supply and demand.  

I also know how my broker dealer set's their fees and it's not by how rare and valuable the share of stock is.  The fee is based on the volume of the trade; more volume results in better terms.   In most business's volume trumps almost everything else... except for rare coins, or course.  Any one can see that tens of thousands of Orlando trades are more valuable to RCI than a couple dozen hard to get South African trades.

And why you think RCI owes you or me the secret sauce in their TPU calculations defies all logic.   You have the factors that go into it and you're already unhappy and dismissive of it.  The appropriate response to someone demanding such details is, "It's our business and we make the rules.  Don't let the door hit you on the way out."


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> Demand is based on the totality of the RCI system from all members in all countries, not the number of Americans who want to go to the UK, or Phillipinos who want to go to Orlando, or Hungarians who want to go to New Zealand.




Say's who?  



> Those from overbuilt areas have always opposed full transparency, because they know if they had to go by an objective formula and all values were known that their areas would be in the toilet on trading power.



And who say's it's supposed to be objective, or at least objective based on your standards.  I'm rather certain that it's objective from a profit perspective.  The values are known, btw, and that's really all that matters.


----------



## Carolinian

I don't think you understand where RCI's profit comes from.  It is exchange fees and membership fees.  If they have an oversupply of something and therefore get no exchange, they get no exchange fee.  Something rare and hard to get, on the other hand, is a guaranteed exchange fee for them, and if they set their exchange parameters right, they will get something else rare and hard to get for it, which will also quickly go out the door for yet another, and so on in a chain of exchanges.  That generates more exchange fees and therefore more profits than letting someone take it with an overpointed week.

They tell us what they claim is behind their numbers but we can see with our own eyes that it is simply not true, unless as you postulate that volume trumps all, and if that is the case, then they are still not being honest about it. And if volume at RCI trumps real value, then those with prime weeks need to pick up their marbles and move over to SFX which puts a real value on the good stuff. 

 No, we cannot force them to be fully transparent any more than we could force them to be non-transparent or to be partially transparent.  What we can do is realize that this creates an untrustworthy system where we can see examples of people getting hosed, move ourselves to other exchange companies that we trust more, excourage others to move, expose the problems to help encourage others to move, and work with our HOA's to get the word out on alternatives for those who wish to exchange.

Team Orlando here is always out in force to try to defend their gravy train.  Heck, if I owned there, I would might be tempted to join you.  But I know what VV@P is really worth.  It is one of the easiest trades in timeshare.  I traded in once with a SA week.  I sorta hated to use that but I haven't owned a  blue week in years.  Most of the people I know who have gone there have traded in with a blue week.  Now THAT is what VV@P is really worth without artificially inflated numbers.  Arguing that Orlando is not overbuilt in timeshare is sorta like arguing that the world isn't round, but there are some Orlando partisans on here who will argue themselves blue iin the face over it.




vckempson said:


> Trade Point's aren't money, and the middle man's (RCI's) profit isn't the spread between bid and ask, it's the volume of the trades.  I'm a stock broker and I know full and well about supply and demand.
> 
> I also know how my broker dealer set's their fees and it's not by how rare and valuable the share of stock is.  The fee is based on the volume of the trade; more volume results in better terms.   In most business's volume trumps almost everything else... except for rare coins, or course.  Any one can see that tens of thousands of Orlando trades are more valuable to RCI than a couple dozen hard to get South African trades.
> 
> And why you think RCI owes you or me the secret sauce in their TPU calculations defies all logic.   You have the factors that go into it and you're already unhappy and dismissive of it.  The appropriate response to someone demanding such details is, "It's our business and we make the rules.  Don't let the door hit you on the way out."


----------



## Carolinian

vckempson said:


> Say's who?
> 
> 
> 
> And who say's it's supposed to be objective, or at least objective based on your standards.  I'm rather certain that it's objective from a profit perspective.  The values are known, btw, and that's really all that matters.



1) Common sense.  It would be highly illogical to run a business in the manner that John suggests

2) Objective IS objective.  It it is based on someone's whim then it is subjective.  Supply is what it is and demand is what it is.


----------



## vckempson

Wow, when the facts don't go your way, you're like a politician, just ignore them.  

So how's that profit thing work?  ... thousands of Orlando trades equals... uhm,  $179 times thousands, and dozens of South Africa trades are... $179 times dozens.  Let me get my calculator out, cause I'm having trouble with all this high math.  Have I got it yet where they make their money?  After 29 years as a Certified Financial Planner with a background in accounting I think I get the whole profit thing.  

That's exactly what you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge, though.  They reward those depositors from areas that contribute significantly to their bottom line.  They are *very* objective about that, painfully and maybe unfairly so, but there's nothing _subjective_ about it.    

Anyway, as I pointed out once before, just because the grocery store has lots of coca cola and only a little RC Cola, it doesn't mean that coca cola is not selling; quite the opposite in their case.  Likewise, seeing lots of open inventory and high TPU deposit values at VV Pkwy (or any other Orlando resort that always has hundreds of available units)  might mean that the weeks are constantly getting booked and resupplied by depositors.  While there is always a big supply, (or oversupply as you've suggested) of Coca Cola, the profits are much larger than RC Cola because of turnover.  Once again, that's the "utilization" factor that goes into the deposit calculation.  When YOU own RCI, then YOU get to have it based on supply and demand only.  Till then, their decision is to include volume in the equation.  

Do I think RCI is this great, honest company?  No, not really.  Am I defending Orlando because of my ownership?  Maybe, but the Orlando purchase was completed after the release of points lite, because of RCI's transparency.  Suddenly I could see exactly where I'd get the most bang for the buck.  It doesn't matter to me if it's there or Tim Buck Two.  If it changes drastically, goodbye Orlando and hello Tim Buck Two.  And again, ultimately, I don't care why I get great TPU values, only that I do, and that it's disclosed.   There is some comfort knowing that VV gets just what all the other Orlando resorts get for TPU deposit values.  But, if it's all a sham, if it really is because RCI is in bed with VV then I'll have a drink to great relationships and enjoy the ride while I can.


----------



## timeos2

What could be a crazier way to run a company than to take in worthless items (blue weeks that even the owners see no value in) and give out things that have a value (the always snapped up Orlando weeks)?  That's what looking to RCI or any trade company to do is asking. THAT sounds like a loser. 

Or lets pay way more in value points to a remote, out of country resort week because there aren't many even though we get 100 requests for the in US ones vs 1 for the out of country spot. If we get three we have too many to find takers for so we have to cut the price to get it moved.  That is a way for the company to make a go of it?

RCI pays for and hands out the values it is fairly certain it can get.  Taking in thousands of European studios or small one bedrooms for high values, if they even existed, wouldn't make sense as the demand for them is extremely limited. Having more doesn't increase that it just means more leftovers.  Paying more and requiring more in trade makes no sense when the demand doesn't support it.  Thats what RCI spends it's time/money doing - balancing values and demand to hopefully maximize profit and minimize waste.  And they do pretty well at it based on the reported figures. So playing games with an area or resort makes no sense at all - and it's highly unlikely to be occurring as it would just hurt their ottom line in the long run.  

Makes for great conspiracy posts though.  Easy to make the case when you make up the fact to support it.


----------



## vckempson

timeos2 said:


> RCI pays for and hands out the values it is fairly certain it can get.  Taking in thousands of European studios or small one bedrooms for high values, if they even existed, wouldn't make sense as the demand for them is extremely limited. Having more doesn't increase that it just means more leftovers.  Paying more and requiring more in trade makes no sense when the demand doesn't support it.  Thats what RCI spends it's time/money doing - balancing values and demand to hopefully maximize profit and minimize waste.  And they do pretty well at it based on the reported figures. So playing games with an area or resort makes no sense at all - and it's highly unlikely to be occurring as it would just hurt their ottom line in the long run.
> 
> Makes for great conspiracy posts though.  Easy to make the case when you make up the fact to support it.



Call me naive, but I couldn't agree more.  Factor in the added transparency of TPU values, where we can all see where the *value* is, and we're way way ahead of the old days.  No longer do we put our precious week into this big black hole, and hope and pray that we get something in return that we might like back.


----------



## tschwa2

I agree too.  We can see what RCI gives weeks going in and what they charge to exchange into(tpu's and fees).  We can see they aren't always equal.  Sometimes the member benefits and sometimes they don't.  If the member is not able to get what they perceive as equal or better they will take there business elsewhere.  Unfortunately RCI has the best availability going for many places despite the fact that they may not do the best job assigning points for some resorts or some areas.  I like II for some areas but haven't found any independents that can give me the value RCI still can.


----------



## Carolinian

It seems to me that you are the one either not comprehending facts or ignoring them.  Facts like what RCI employee and longtime Tugger Bootleg told us that VV@P was the resort with the biggest oversupply of inventory in the entire RCI system.  Facts like RCI giving 50 points lite for deposit of a VV@P week but only charging 10 points lite for exchanging in to the very same week.  The latter tells you what it is REALLY worth.  Ditto the fact that for years anyone with a blue week anywhere got easily trade into VV@P most any time, with a few exceptions, that they wanted it.  Reason?  A blue week most anywhere had the same real value as a VV@P week.

You also don't seem to grasp how a high value week leads to a chain of exchanges and is therefore more profitable than taking in a run of the mill week instead.  In my earlier days at TUG, a fellow Tugger laid it out clearly.  The rare high value week is snapped up rather quickly, often from ongoing searches (my summer UK weeks, for example,never hit the online availibility of any exchange company I have deposited them with) and if they work the system correctly, they take in another similar high value rare week, that again gets taken quickly and on and on, as long as they take in comparable weeks in trade.  These chains of exchanges are far more profitable than taking in a week that sits on the shelf because they already have a glut of them in stock, like VV@P.  When they have to give out two rare weeks for that 50 point lite VV@P week that they will eventually only get 10 points lite for, if they are lucky, that is not a profitable operation.

What you also fail to grasp is why RCI is doing this from their own profit motive. It is not internal to the exchange operation but external to it.  The other place RCI makes money is from membership fees.  The developer is actively selling new owners weeks, points, or whatever at VV@P, and RCI takes in membership fees for its bottom line from those new members.  To help stoke those new membership fees, RCI is using its exchange system as a loss leader (since you always want to make retail comparisions, I suspect you know what that is) to rake in those new members.  That way of operating corrupts the integrity of the exchange system.  If you look at the resorts that are getting hosed on points lite values, they mostly have one thing in common; they are mature resorts no longer in developer sales.  It is not at all surprising that in the run up to Points Lite, RCI was sharing info on it early on with active developers and some major management companies but was often leaving the sold out resorts competely in the dark, and that occured on both sides of the pond.  With RCI, the term ''sold out resort'' often has a sinister double meaning.

You also keep pushing the retail store analogy which just does not apply to a timeshare exchange situation.  The retailer uses his own money to buy his own stock based on his experience of how much he will sell.  A timeshare exchange company takes whatever deposits a member is willing to give and has little control over what those deposits will be or how they fit in with anticipated demand.  When they are heavily discounting something like they are with VV@P, that shows that demand is not as high as what members are depositing.  A fair and objective system would then adjust the value given for deposits downward to their real value, but that would upset the developer in this case, so that is unlikely.

If RCI wants to overvalue overbuilt areas, fine let RCI have them, and owners elsewhere should move to other exchange companies.  I think RCI has, probably unwittingly, already sown the seeds of that for high value high season weeks when they started allowing members to combine weeks.  This is going to reduce the inventory of high value weeks, as people with two middling weeks trade for them, leaving the high value weeks owners with much less ability to trade like for like.  SFX must be salivating at this, for they are the logical exchange company for those owners to flee to.  Allowing VV@P owners to trade into high value weeks just piles it on even more.




vckempson said:


> Wow, when the facts don't go your way, you're like a politician, just ignore them.
> 
> So how's that profit thing work?  ... thousands of Orlando trades equals... uhm,  $179 times thousands, and dozens of South Africa trades are... $179 times dozens.  Let me get my calculator out, cause I'm having trouble with all this high math.  Have I got it yet where they make their money?  After 29 years as a Certified Financial Planner with a background in accounting I think I get the whole profit thing.
> 
> That's exactly what you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge, though.  They reward those depositors from areas that contribute significantly to their bottom line.  They are *very* objective about that, painfully and maybe unfairly so, but there's nothing _subjective_ about it.
> 
> Anyway, as I pointed out once before, just because the grocery store has lots of coca cola and only a little RC Cola, it doesn't mean that coca cola is not selling; quite the opposite in their case.  Likewise, seeing lots of open inventory and high TPU deposit values at VV Pkwy (or any other Orlando resort that always has hundreds of available units)  might mean that the weeks are constantly getting booked and resupplied by depositors.  While there is always a big supply, (or oversupply as you've suggested) of Coca Cola, the profits are much larger than RC Cola because of turnover.  Once again, that's the "utilization" factor that goes into the deposit calculation.  When YOU own RCI, then YOU get to have it based on supply and demand only.  Till then, their decision is to include volume in the equation.
> 
> Do I think RCI is this great, honest company?  No, not really.  Am I defending Orlando because of my ownership?  Maybe, but the Orlando purchase was completed after the release of points lite, because of RCI's transparency.  Suddenly I could see exactly where I'd get the most bang for the buck.  It doesn't matter to me if it's there or Tim Buck Two.  If it changes drastically, goodbye Orlando and hello Tim Buck Two.  And again, ultimately, I don't care why I get great TPU values, only that I do, and that it's disclosed.   There is some comfort knowing that VV gets just what all the other Orlando resorts get for TPU deposit values.  But, if it's all a sham, if it really is because RCI is in bed with VV then I'll have a drink to great relationships and enjoy the ride while I can.


----------



## Carolinian

Orlando weeks are hardly ''always snapped up''.  On the contrary, there is always a glut of them.

You also take a very provincial attitude as to demand.  What the demand is for European weeks from Americans is no more relevent that what the demand for Orlando weeks is from Herfordshire or Burgundy or Hessen.  Demand is the total demand worldwide from the RCI system.  Supply, likewise is the totality of supply from all sources worldwide.

Trying to lump all of Europe as one would be like trying to lump all parts of the US as one, which is utter nonsense.  Just like some areas of the US have better supply / demand curves, like Sanibel-Captiva or the Keys, so does Europe.  There are indeed overbuilt places in Europe.  The Canary Islands are probably Europe's version of Orlando, but Hungary, Finland, and the coast of Spain are also overbuilt.  Places like the British Isles, especially England and Ireland, on the other hand, have very good supply demand curves.  

Let me give you a good example.  I am sure as an HOA BOD member that you are familar with RCI's VIP program, where they allow HOA BOD members and some management staff to do special trades.  A VIP member can get any exchange week RCI has anywhere in the world, except one place, just by giving any week of the same color and size, regardless of trading power.  One place in the world is ringfenced where you cannot use VIP to trade in, because the supply there is very limited and the exchange demand from their regular members enormous.  Do you know where that one place in the world is?  London, England.

You also seem to ignore other parts of RCI's agenda, like pandering to developers to seek new members and using the exchange system as a loss leader to do that, their rental empire, etc.  Those bend and distort the way they run their exchange system.




timeos2 said:


> What could be a crazier way to run a company than to take in worthless items (blue weeks that even the owners see no value in) and give out things that have a value (the always snapped up Orlando weeks)?  That's what looking to RCI or any trade company to do is asking. THAT sounds like a loser.
> 
> Or lets pay way more in value points to a remote, out of country resort week because there aren't many even though we get 100 requests for the in US ones vs 1 for the out of country spot. If we get three we have too many to find takers for so we have to cut the price to get it moved.  That is a way for the company to make a go of it?
> 
> RCI pays for and hands out the values it is fairly certain it can get.  Taking in thousands of European studios or small one bedrooms for high values, if they even existed, wouldn't make sense as the demand for them is extremely limited. Having more doesn't increase that it just means more leftovers.  Paying more and requiring more in trade makes no sense when the demand doesn't support it.  Thats what RCI spends it's time/money doing - balancing values and demand to hopefully maximize profit and minimize waste.  And they do pretty well at it based on the reported figures. So playing games with an area or resort makes no sense at all - and it's highly unlikely to be occurring as it would just hurt their ottom line in the long run.
> 
> Makes for great conspiracy posts though.  Easy to make the case when you make up the fact to support it.


----------



## chriskre

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: 

Great debate but obviously he can't be persuaded no matter what logical argument to the contrary.   

As for me I'm almost persuaded by this thread to buy a high TPU week at VV Parkway and let RCI put their foot on the scale if they want to.     

I could use more vacations.


----------



## tombo

chriskre said:


> :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
> 
> Great debate but obviously he can't be persuaded no matter what logical argument to the contrary.
> 
> As for me I'm almost persuaded by this thread to buy a high TPU week at VV Parkway and let RCI put their foot on the scale if they want to.
> 
> I could use more vacations.



So far I have held strong and not purchased a cheap Vac Villages on E-bay but this thread has me seriously considering buying one myself, and I don't need another timeshare anywhere.  


I need to keep repeating I am a timeshare addict and I DO NOT need to log onto E-bay for any reason.......


----------



## Carolinian

There are people who believe that Orlando is not overbuilt in timeshare, just like there are people who beleive the world is flat.  While the experience of many many timesharers on that should be enough, the authoritative info from Bootleg, and specifically mentioning VV@P as the single resort with the biggest oversupply in the entire RCI system, should be conclusive.  But I know that Team Orlando will never give up, so it is like talking to a brick wall.


----------



## Carolinian

I had an interesting email on a point I had not thought about which may be influencing RCI's behavior.  The suggestion was that maybe RCI's numbers were skewed by including their rentals to the general public from exchange deposits in calculating ''demand'' which would favor those areas in which RCI had spent more effort building a rental network, such as the US, over areas where it had not done so much on building its rental empire.  I can certainly believe that RCI might think that way, and if so it is just one more way in which RCI's rental program is corrupting the integrity of its exchange program.

I tried to get the person who sent the email to post her thoughts herself, as she laid them out in more detail than my summation, but she did not want to get on the receiving end of some of the more strident pro-RCI posters here.  I have thicker skin so I don't care.  I'll call 'em like I see 'em.


----------



## tombo

Perhaps RCI concentrates on the US because there are currently a total of 68,445 weeks available for exchange in the US, there are 46,846 available in Mexico,  a total of 31,490 weeks for exchange in ALL of Europe, there are 9,621 available in the Caribbean,  a total of 2,541 available for exchange in ALL of Africa and the Middle East, and downward from there. Perhaps RCI concentrates on where they have the most timeshare weeks built, owned, deposited, and traded for like any smart business would. Perhaps the fact that there are more weeks for trade in the US and Mexico combined than there are timeshares available in the rest of the world combined makes a difference.

Unlike Europe where they have a house with 3 bed rooms and call it a timshare, in the US they build huge timeshares with many 2 and 3 bed units,  and the developers sell many timeshares to large numbers of people who will join RCI and exchange. The US is the big dog in timeshares. Most of the US timeshare owners travel mainly in the US. Orlando has a ton of timeshares, but t is one of the top travel destinations in the US, and probably the number one timeshare destination with regards to total number of travellers. The developers built where the demand was. You will not see a lot of mega timeshare resorts built in Kansas BECAUSE THERE IS LITTLE DEMAND. Demand drives developers to build timeshares. Demand is what the US has.

To get a fair and unbiased view of where people are interested in visiting and owning, just look at TUG and the demand for topics of discussion. The US has 5 different sections on TUG to discuss regional timeshares. US eastern has 3832 threads with 34,512 posts. Just the state of Florida (where Orlando is) has 3871 threads with 34,512 posts, Central US has 1375 threads with 9342 posts, Western US has 4019 threads with 35,368 posts,  and Hawaii has 2312 threads with 24,613 posts. 

Let's look at the demand and interest in ALL of Europe. There is a total of one area to post about Europe timeshares and discussing all of Europe there are a GRAND TOTAL OF 753 threads and a total of 6,445 posts. Every one of the 5 US regions have more interest, more threads, and more posts than TUG has generated on discussions about ALL of Europe. Wake up. Most timeshare people are rarelly (if ever) concerned about travelling to, trading for, or buying Europe resorts. Oh let's not forget that powerhouse and hotbed of demand that is South Africa. There are 645 TOTALthreads and a whopping 4919 posts about ALL of South Africa. If you remove posts about what value RCI places on the South Africa weeks they own, the number of threads and  posts would drop drastically since that seems to be one of the main topics of discussion. 

If (as Carolinian charges)RCI does have a conspiracy to ignore the demand and undervalue those hard to get exchanges in Europe and South Africa favoring the US and Orlando, then I am afraid that TUG is in on it too. Perhaps TUG is deleting threads on those hard to get areas. Perhaps RCI is paying TUG to  reduce the number of actual posts and threads on what Carolinian knows to be the number one hardest to get timeshares in the world. Write your congressmen. Demand an investigation. The RCI bias against Europe and South Africa has been joined by TUG!!!!! It is a worldwide conspiracy between RCI, TUG, and Vacation Villages at the Parkway!!!!! It must be exposed. It must be stopped.

Give us a break. You post on Europe and South Africa threads and the same few TUGGERS and TUG's SERIAL GUEST Carolinian (who for some reason refuses to join TUG) will answer. In fact Carolinian might personally be responsible for the largest number of posts on both the South Africa and the Europe threads. 

There is little interest from most timeshare owners on TUG with regards to owning or exchanging for Europe or South Africa. Just look at the number TUG discussions if you have any doubts. Look at the posts about TUGGERS looking for Disney, Hawaii, Hitlon Head, and compare it to the occasional request for info on Europe or SA. And before TUG is accused of being only an American web site,  yes TUG is open to all from all countries, and many TUG members are from overseas. In fact as you can see TUG is even open to perpetual guests who blindly believe against all evidence that Europe and South Africa are Mecca for timeshare travellers.

RCI is doing what they should. They are concentrating on their core business and largest income stream, and that is the US, not Europe, and definetelly not South Africa.


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> I had an interesting email on a point I had not thought about which may be influencing RCI's behavior.  The suggestion was that maybe RCI's numbers were skewed by including their rentals to the general public from exchange deposits in calculating ''demand'' which would favor those areas in which RCI had spent more effort building a rental network, such as the US, over areas where it had not done so much on building its rental empire....


This is hardly a new idea.  I suggested that much the same was happening ten years ago when Carolinian was complaining about how the Orlando area was being overpointed in the Points system.  For the record, here is a different take on the issue....

Orlando is an area where families who own no timeshare often make a lifetime trip for the sake of their kids.  (Not everybody can take trips across Europe three or four times a year.)  They would like more room than what a hotel can provide. What RCI did (or appears to have done) is set up a "points for products" option within the Points system.  (People give up points and receive a cash amount to use for airlines tickets, car rentals, etc.)  In essence (the way I see it) is that RCI is renting units and paying the Points owner part of the procedes (taking a cut I am sure).  

One possibility would have been for RCI to always rent owner's actual deposit, but that would have been tremendously ineffecient.  They would have had to advertise all over the country, sometimes only having a single unit in a given area for a given month to offer.  Better to concentrate on renting in areas of high demand for one time rentals (Orlando, Hawaii, etc.)  

So now on to the second option for RCI.  They could have given low point values to the people in these locations because in the timeshare world (as a closed market) they are overbuilt.  Then they could have turned around and made a nifty profit renting in the open market to the general public.  In essence, they could have stolen some of the open market value for an Orlando rental from the people who deposited units.  They didn't do that.

The bottom line is that RCI (at a fee via arbitrage) has been willing to rent units for people in the Points system.  Rather than taking units from whereever they were deposited (and depleting the number of timeshare units in scarce areas), they have rented in those areas that overbuilt from a timesharing point of view, but have a higher value in the open market.

The corruption that Carolinian refers to is that he thinks that RCI should have kept the timeshare system closed.  If that had occurred, maintenence fees for Orlando would have been high (the timeshares there are competively luxurious) and the timeshare trading values would have been low (but the system would have been free of corruption).

Regardless of what you the morality (or whatever) of keeping the timeshare system closed, personally, I don't think that was an option.  Taking my own case as an example, I am less and less interested in timesharing because in many cases, with the dawn of the Internet (which Carolinian has claimed for years has had no bearing on timesharing), it is often easy to find rentals.  Sometimes there are great deals on RCI (if you are willing to go in seasons that often are not that attractive), but often I see rentals for just what I want and are not connected with timesharing at all.  In my opinion, trying to pretend that RCI could completely isolate itself from this form of competition would be like ATT saying that it could ignore cell phones because they had built the greatest phone system in the world under Crystal deHahn.  (Just joking about the reference to Crystal.)


----------



## Carolinian

TUG is a US-based site.  The fact that more of its members post on boards dealing with US destinations is no more relevant in the grand scheme of things than the fact that few posters on European based boards post about US timeshares.

The numbers you post are all SUPPLY side and say nothing about the DEMAND side.  Because RCI, and for that matter other exchange companies, rarely have much inventory in San Francisco, Charleston, New York, or London, do you think this means there is no demand for them????

Mexico is another area where there has been a glut recently, as shown by a number of posts by Tuggers familiar with the area.  Yet you seem to see it as a high demand low supply area.  The fact that a lot of stuff is just sitting there in the bank shows a poor supply / demand curve, not a good one.

You think timeshare developers built where there is demand? Obviously you have not followed prior discussions on these boards on that subject.  Timeshare developers build where there is TOUR FLOW, and as long as there is tour flow they will keep building there with no regard to what they may do to the exchange system.  If they can figure out a way to still get tour flow in a popular area fpr tours, they will do so without building.  Points schemes help them do that.  Peppertree / Equivest kept selling points on the Outer Banks long after they had essentially sold out (as weeks) their inventory at their last resort.  They told buyers, ''don't worry, you can use your points for summer at the Outer Banks'', even though there was little inventory to back that up.  They told the buyers not to worry that the week they were deeded was in the Midwest because ''points are points''.  Needless to say, before long they had a bunch of mad points members once bought to trade into that nice resort they had toured on the OBX but were no that their was no room in the Equivest / Peppertree points Inn.  Or take Charleston, SC, one of the places that Bootleg told us had a lot more demand than supply in the RCI system.  They have a points developer playing the same game there, taking their tour flows, deeding them points somewhere else since their Charleston resort is long sold out, and playing the shell game with them.  Points help them maintain sales in areas with high tour flows without having to build new inventory.  And places like Charleston or the Outer Banks are expensive places to build a new timeshare.





tombo said:


> Perhaps RCI concentrates on the US because there are currently a total of 68,445 weeks available for exchange in the US, there are 46,846 available in Mexico,  a total of 31,490 weeks for exchange in ALL of Europe, there are 9,621 available in the Caribbean,  a total of 2,541 available for exchange in ALL of Africa and the Middle East, and downward from there. Perhaps RCI concentrates on where they have the most timeshare weeks built, owned, deposited, and traded for like any smart business would. Perhaps the fact that there are more weeks for trade in the US and Mexico combined than there are timeshares available in the rest of the world combined makes a difference.
> 
> Unlike Europe where they have a house with 3 bed rooms and call it a timshare, in the US they build huge timeshares with many 2 and 3 bed units,  and the developers sell many timeshares to large numbers of people who will join RCI and exchange. The US is the big dog in timeshares. Most of the US timeshare owners travel mainly in the US. Orlando has a ton of timeshares, but t is one of the top travel destinations in the US, and probably the number one timeshare destination with regards to total number of travellers. The developers built where the demand was. You will not see a lot of mega timeshare resorts built in Kansas BECAUSE THERE IS LITTLE DEMAND. Demand drives developers to build timeshares. Demand is what the US has.
> 
> To get a fair and unbiased view of where people are interested in visiting and owning, just look at TUG and the demand for topics of discussion. The US has 5 different sections on TUG to discuss regional timeshares. US eastern has 3832 threads with 34,512 posts. Just the state of Florida (where Orlando is) has 3871 threads with 34,512 posts, Central US has 1375 threads with 9342 posts, Western US has 4019 threads with 35,368 posts,  and Hawaii has 2312 threads with 24,613 posts.
> 
> Let's look at the demand and interest in ALL of Europe. There is a total of one area to post about Europe timeshares and discussing all of Europe there are a GRAND TOTAL OF 753 threads and a total of 6,445 posts. Every one of te 5 US regions have more interest, more threads, and more posts than TUG has generated on discussions about ALL of Europe. Wake up. Most timeshare people are concerned about travelling to, trading for, or buying Europe resorts rarelly if ever. Oh let's not forget that powerhouse and hotbed of demand that is South Africa. There are 645 TOTALthreads and a whopping 4919 posts about ALL of South Africa. If you remove posts about what value RCI places on the South Africa weeks they own, the number of threads and  posts would drop drastically. Many of the SA timeshare owners only care about how they are valued in RCI because most seem have no desire to go to the timeshares they own, they want to exchange them for somewhere in the US from the majority of posts I have read.
> 
> If (as Carolinian charges)RCI does have a conspiracy to ignore the demand and undervalue those hard to get exchanges in Europe and South Africa favoring the US and Orlando, then I am afraid that TUG is in on it too. Perhaps TUG is deleting threads on those hard to get areas. Perhaps RCI is paying TUG to  reduce the number of actual posts and threads on what Carolinian knows to be the number one hardest to get timehsares in the world. Write your congressmen. Demand an investigation. The RCI bias against Europe and South Africa has been joined by TUG!!!!! It is a worldwide conspracy between RCI, TUG, and Vacation Villages at the Parkway!!!!! It must be exposed. It must be stopped.
> 
> Give us a break. You post on Europe and South Africa threads and the same few TUGGERS and TUG's SERIAL GUEST Carolinian (who for some reason refuses to join TUG) will answer. In fact Carolinian might personally be responsible for the largest number of posts on the Europe threads.
> 
> Just like RCI deposits, there is little interest from most timeshare owners on owning or exchanging for Europe or South Africa. Just look at the TUG discssions if you have any doubts. And yes TUG is open to all from all countries. In fact as you can see TUG is even open to perpetual guests.
> 
> RCI is doing what they should. They are concentrating on their core business and largest income stream, and that is the US, not Europe, and definetelly not South Africa.


----------



## Carolinian

WOW!  Are you still in denial over the now well established fact that RCI is renting weeks deposited for EXCHANGE that have NOTHING at all to do with points or cruises or anything like that????  Did you sleep through the lawsuit?

And RCI is, in fact, renting exchange inventory not just in Orlando but ALL OVER the US.  I have seen plenty of them on the Outer Banks.  Look at any of RCI's rental outlets if you doubt that.  And I have seen plenty of those on the Outer Banks that are without question exchange deposits.  You also ignore the info from RCI employees on various boards that RCI often takes prime exchange deposits given to the weeks system (and probably points too) that have nothing to do with PFD or cruises or anything that would give them an excuse to do so, and put it directly into their rental pool.



"Roger" said:


> This is hardly a new idea.  I suggested that much the same was happening ten years ago when Carolinian was complaining about how the Orlando area was being overpointed in the Points system.  For the record, here is a different take on the issue....
> 
> Orlando is an area where families who own no timeshare often make a lifetime trip for the sake of their kids.  (Not everybody can take trips across Europe three or four times a year.)  They would like more room than what a hotel can provide. What RCI did (or appears to have done) is set up a "points for products" option within the Points system.  (People give up points and receive a cash amount to use for airlines tickets, car rentals, etc.)  In essence (the way I see it) is that RCI is renting units and paying the Points owner part of the procedes (taking a cut I am sure).
> 
> One possibility would have been for RCI to always rent owner's actual deposit, but that would have been tremendously ineffecient.  They would have had to advertise all over the country, sometimes only having a single unit in a given area for a given month to offer.  Better to concentrate on renting in areas of high demand for one time rentals (Orlando, Hawaii, etc.)
> 
> So now on to the second option for RCI.  They could have given low point values to the people in these locations because in the timeshare world (as a closed market) they are overbuilt.  Then they could have turned around and made a nifty profit renting in the open market to the general public.  In essence, they could have stolen some of the open market value for an Orlando rental from the people who deposited units.  They didn't do that.
> 
> The bottom line is that RCI (at a fee via arbitrage) has been willing to rent units for people in the Points system.  Rather than taking units from whereever they were deposited (and depleting the number of timeshare units in scarce areas), they have rented in those areas that overbuilt from a timesharing point of view, but have a higher value in the open market.
> 
> The corruption that Carolinian refers to is that he thinks that RCI should have kept the timeshare system closed.  If that had occurred, maintenence fees for Orlando would have been high (the timeshares there are competively luxurious) and the timeshare trading values would have been low (but the system would have been free of corruption).
> 
> Regardless of what you the morality (or whatever) of keeping the timeshare system closed, personally, I don't think that was an option.  Taking my own case as an example, I am less and less interested in timesharing because in many cases, with the dawn of the Internet (which Carolinian has claimed for years has had no bearing on timesharing), it is often easy to find rentals.  Sometimes there are great deals on RCI (if you are willing to go in seasons that often are not that attractive), but often I see rentals for just what I want and are not connected with timesharing at all.  In my opinion, trying to pretend that RCI could completely isolate itself from this form of competition would be like ATT saying that it could ignore cell phones because they had built the greatest phone system in the world under Crystal deHahn.  (Just joking about the reference to Crystal.)


----------



## tombo

Carolinian said:


> TUG is a US-based site.  The fact that more of its members post on boards dealing with US destinations is no more relevant in the grand scheme of things than the fact that few posters on European based boards post about US timeshares.



Well since TUG is US based, why are you not posting on the european TUG  equivalent? Surelly with the huge demand for European timeshares, Europe has to have a timeshare web site where europeans can discuss European timeshares like us Americans do on TUG. That is  where you should concentrate you educational efforts. Few here care about availability in Europe or South Africa.

Yes we TUGGERS are mainly US based and ignorant to the HUGE worldwide demand for Europe and SA. Yes few here care about discussing how RCI is slighting the greatest timeshare deposits  in the world which are located in Europe and SA (according to you). Of course the fact is that there is no equivalent to TUG in Europe in terms of numbers of members (and guests like you) because the US timeshare market dwarfs the european market.

The facts show that few on TUG care to discuss, buy, or exchange for European timeshares or South African timeshares. When is the last time people got excited about a bulk deposit of SA weeks with RCI? Look hard for that thread. I can direct you to plenty of threads where where TUGGERS get excited about Disney and HGVC Orlando deposits. Facts hurt don't they. 



Carolinian said:


> The numbers you post are all SUPPLY side and say nothing about the DEMAND side.  Because RCI, and for that matter other exchange companies, rarely have much inventory in San Francisco, Charleston, New York, or London, do you think this means there is no demand for them????



You have ZERO FACTS with regards to DEMAND. Please prove me wrong and post your facts about the demand for weeks in Europe or SA with RCI and reference them. You have stated many times that the demand for England, France, etc, etc, is higher than the demand for many US locations, but you never show any evidence that what you are saying is a fact. You have your opinion and nothing but your opinion about demand for Europe and South Africa in RCI.

I showed you FACTS about availability with RCI in black and white. I showed you FACTS about numbers of threads, nuimbers of posts on tug. 

Here is another FACT: The Outer Banks was not chosen as a Top 25 beach by Trip Adviser travellers in 2011 even though you act as though it is the hardest trade around. You tout the OBX in most of your posts as an example of high demand locations. The fact is that the OBX didn't even make the top 10 in the US on the 2011 list. Once again your opinions become facts because you believe them to be true. you have no evidence, only heresay and opinions presented as facts.
http://www.tripadvisor.com/TCBeaches

Please enlighten us with facts that are verifiable. Please reference places to verify DEMAND. Facts is facts. So far you have not presented any facts, only opinions. Opinions are fine, but to assume your opinions are always correct and everyone who disagrees is wrong is ridiculous. 

PS Bootleg USED to post on TUG. Bootleg USED to work for RCI. Bootleg has not worked for RCI or posted on TUG since the weeks program changed.That horse is dead. On the other hand I did channel Bootleg the other night using a Ouija Board, and when asked if he like the new weeks program, the answer was yes.


----------



## vckempson

Originally Posted by Carolinian 


> It seems to me that you are the one either not comprehending facts or ignoring them.  Facts like what RCI employee and longtime Tugger Bootleg told us that VV@P was the resort with the biggest oversupply of inventory in the entire RCI system...
> 
> If you look at the resorts that are getting hosed on points lite values, they mostly have one thing in common; they are mature resorts no longer in developer sales...
> 
> You also keep pushing the retail store analogy which just does not apply to a timeshare exchange situation.



I don't discount that there *may* be an element of truth in what you say.  But you are so closed minded to even acknowledge *any* potential validity to what others are saying here.  

I'm not an Orlando groupie, but factually speaking I'm getting TPU's at a cost of $12 each, which is wonderfully cheep.   I don't need to defend it, because it is what is.  If my reasoning is all wrong, so what?  I'm still getting cheap TPU's to trade.  Yes, Orlando is overbuilt, but being overbuilt doesn't reduce whatever the actual number of trades or rentals that are in fact happening.   That's unknown to us both,  but the "utilization factor" is what ultimately drives the validity of our respective positions.  Yes, there is excess supply.   That might mean it's just sitting there or it might well mean that there's a lot of booked weeks that are constantly resupplied by the available excess supply.  That was the only purpose of my coke analogy.

The one thing that is abundantly clear, though, is that VV at Pkwy isn't getting any preferential pointing over any other resorts in Orlando.  In looking at TPU deposit values, it doesn't seem to matter if it's 1. an old or new resort 2.  in development or mature, 3. large or small resort,  4. well reviewed or not 5. Gold Crown or No crown, the majority of them are all in the same ballpark if you compare similar units for the same week.   Thus, even if you are right, it's all of Orlando that's getting special treatment, not just one resort.  What does seem to matter, if you want lots of TPU's, is to get a lockout for a valuable fixed week somewhere.  Split it on deposit and you'll double your points.

While it's just my opinion, I believe that Orlando is one of the most visited destinations in the world.   I actually own weeks in South Africa... never been there, though.  Until recently, I've never owned in Orlando... but I've been there 4 or 5 times in last 10 years.  That's purely anectdotal, but probably representative of many in the US. 

All in all, we'll just have to agree to disagree because I'm exhausted and the weekend is here to relax and go have some fun.


----------



## vckempson

One other thing about TPU values.  With any formula, there are several inputs.  It's not always the same factor that leads to high values.  Any one input that is an outlier can skew the final number.  If utilization is a high number in Orlando, that alone could account for the high TPU values.  If you're somewhere else and the demand input is high, or the supply input is low, that could well be the driver of high TPU values.   It's not always the same situation that gives you that extra umph.


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> WOW!  Are you still in denial over the now well established fact that RCI is renting weeks deposited for EXCHANGE that have NOTHING at all to do with points or cruises or anything like that????  Did you sleep through the lawsuit?.


 I was simply responding to why Orlando resorts might be receiving the number of points that they do.  That was the topic of conversation in my earlier post (and looking back at what was quoted in my post readers can verify that).


----------



## MichaelColey

Not everything is high in Orlando.  There are some prime weeks that get great trading value, but there are dog weeks as well.  It's the same almost anywhere.

I think there's a lot more market value and a lot less manipulation in the calculations than some would claim.


----------



## tombo

I did a little more research to find FACTS about timeshares by country. 


According to The European Timeshare Industry Report 2008, published by the Resort Development Organisation (RDO) and written by The Christel DeHaan Tourism and Travel Research Institute, University of Nottingham, UK, there were a total of 73,540 timeshare units in European resorts in 2007.


http://www.rciaffiliates.com/europe/industry/facts-figures

As of January 1, 2007, there were 1,641 timeshare resorts in the United States. The total number of weekly equivalent intervals owned was approximately 6.5 million. 
http://www.vacationbetter.org/content1202

6.5 million timeshare intervals in the US in 2007.  Only 73,500 timeshare units in all of Europe in 2007. The fact that anyone can ever trade for a week in Europe should show proof of lack of demand. Can you imagine how hard it would be to exchange for a US week if the entire country only had 735,000 units? With 73,500 you could forget it.   

From ARDA:
"The American Resort Development Association ARDA has published: 
•A total of 1,767,000 households own timeshares in the US. The number of timeshare intervals owned by consumers in the US is growing at a compound rate of 9% per year! Over three million households worldwide now own a vacation interval, with owners residing in 200 countries!"

So more than half of the timeshare owning households WORLDWIDE are US households. There are over 200 countries with timeshare owners, yet the US has more timeshare owners than the other 200 plus countries combined! Who should RCI cater to? Obviously they should and do cater to their largest market which is the US.

http://wapatotimeshares.com/why-ts-makes-sense_292.html

Facts are great things.


----------



## chriskre

One thing I'd like to add.

If I wanted to go to Europe, I'd use II (which I've done before) , SFX or DAE instead, since they seem to get more European inventory.  If I want to go to Orlando, RCI is usually the clear winner with inventory unless I want to splurge with a Marriott in II.   

Yup call me guilty  but I'm one of those sinners who is renting those oversupplied weeks from any of the nice Orlando TS's.  

Interestingly enough I never use any of my TS's to trade back into Orlando, other than my DVC points.    I always either use last call, HGVC open season, 9K instant exchanges, DAE bonus weeks or II getaways or AC's.  Since I go to Orlando probably 6 or 7 times a year you know that I'm happy that there are lots and lots of cheap options to stay in since I've become quite a bit of a motel snob and won't ever be caught dead in a motel in Kissimmee.     Since most of the money that RCI makes off of me is from my Orlando stays, I totally understand as a customer of RCI why they'd thumb my scale at VV Parkway.


----------



## Carolinian

In fact I DO post on TUG's European equivalent, and was a moderator there for several years.

In fact when I looked at the rare hard to get locations and how RCI was underpointing many of them, I used examples from the Caribbean and mainland US, as well as Europe.  For some reason, you hate Europe and therefore want to focus on it.  You even brag that you had a free trip to Europe and did not take it.  I doubt there are many other Tuggers who hate Europe that much.

You still do not seem to comprehend that a supply and demand system is based on the TOTALITY of supply VERSUS the totality of demand.  Availibility online is ALL about the supply side and says NOTHING, NADA, ZIP about demand.  If anything, it has the opposite meaning of what you try to attribute to it.  If things are still sitting around online like they are for Orlando, that tells you that supply exceeds demand.  You won't find all those excesses sitting around for New York, San Francisco, Charleston, St. John, or London.



tombo said:


> Well since TUG is US based, why are you not posting on the european TUG  equivalent? Surelly with the huge demand for European timeshares, Europe has to have a timeshare web site where europeans can discuss European timeshares like us Americans do on TUG. That is  where you should concentrate you educational efforts. Few here care about availability in Europe or South Africa.
> 
> Yes we TUGGERS are mainly US based and ignorant to the HUGE worldwide demand for Europe and SA. Yes few here care about discussing how RCI is slighting the greatest timeshare deposits  in the world which are located in Europe and SA (according to you). Of course the fact is that there is no equivalent to TUG in Europe in terms of numbers of members (and guests like you) because the US timeshare market dwarfs the european market.
> 
> The facts show that few on TUG care to discuss, buy, or exchange for European timeshares or South African timeshares. When is the last time people got excited about a bulk deposit of SA weeks with RCI? Look hard for that thread. I can direct you to plenty of threads where where TUGGERS get excited about Disney and HGVC Orlando deposits. Facts hurt don't they.
> 
> 
> 
> You have ZERO FACTS with regards to DEMAND. Please prove me wrong and post your facts about the demand for weeks in Europe or SA with RCI and reference them. You have stated many times that the demand for England, France, etc, etc, is higher than the demand for many US locations, but you never show any evidence that what you are saying is a fact. You have your opinion and nothing but your opinion about demand for Europe and South Africa in RCI.
> 
> I showed you FACTS about availability with RCI in black and white. I showed you FACTS about numbers of threads, nuimbers of posts on tug.
> 
> The world has not changed in terms of supply and demand since Bootleg quit posting, and indeed another Tugger recognized him on a call to RCI so he does apparently still work there.  To see that Vacation Village at Parkway still has a glut of inventory on RCI, all you have to do is look at their weeks availible online.
> 
> The availibility tables in the European version of the RCI directory, which are based on both supply AND demand DO indeed show that South Africa has a better supply / demand curve than Orlando, and much of Europe does as well, but not everywhere.  Overbuilt is overbuilt anywhere, and in Europe that includes the Canary Islands (the Orlando of Europe - red all year, warm all year, a nice place to go but just too much timeshare), the Costa del Sol in Spain, Finland, and Hungary.  How can you verify that?  Get the European version of the RCI directory.  The US office used to send it you if you paid them for it, but since I started posting about those tables, they have quit doing that.  You'll have to talk to your buds at RCI about how to get one.
> 
> For any area, the key is not whether they are tops of the list of anything.  It is whether or not there is more demand than the supply that is in the timeshare system.  Anyone who has tried to trade in there in summer knows it has a pretty healthy supply / demand curve.
> 
> Here is another FACT: The Outer Banks was not chosen as a Top 25 beach by Trip Adviser travellers in 2011 even though you act as though it is the hardest trade around. You tout the OBX in most of your posts as an example of high demand locations. The fact is that the OBX didn't even make the top 10 in the US on the 2011 list. Once again your opinions become facts because you believe them to be true. you have no evidence, only heresay and opinions presented as facts.
> http://www.tripadvisor.com/TCBeaches
> 
> Please enlighten us with facts that are verifiable. Please reference places to verify DEMAND. Facts is facts. So far you have not presented any facts, only opinions. Opinions are fine, but to assume your opinions are always correct and everyone who disagrees is wrong is ridiculous.
> 
> PS Bootleg USED to post on TUG. Bootleg USED to work for RCI. Bootleg has not worked for RCI or posted on TUG since the weeks program changed.That horse is dead. On the other hand I did channel Bootleg the other night using a Ouija Board, and when asked if he like the new weeks program, the answer was yes.


----------



## Carolinian

Do you think the rest of us are stupid?  Your little sleigh of hand in comparing number of UNITS in Europe with number of INTERVALS in the US was not as slick as you thought it was. The number of intervals is going to be about 50 times the number of units.  Don't play this apples and oranges shell game.  Compare the same statistic, either units for both or intervals for both, not units for one and intervals for the other.



tombo said:


> I did a little more research to find FACTS about timeshares by country.
> 
> 
> According to The European Timeshare Industry Report 2008, published by the Resort Development Organisation (RDO) and written by The Christel DeHaan Tourism and Travel Research Institute, University of Nottingham, UK, there were a total of 73,540 timeshare units in European resorts in 2007.
> 
> 
> http://www.rciaffiliates.com/europe/industry/facts-figures
> 
> As of January 1, 2007, there were 1,641 timeshare resorts in the United States. The total number of weekly equivalent intervals owned was approximately 6.5 million.
> http://www.vacationbetter.org/content1202
> 
> 6.5 million timeshare intervals in the US in 2007.  Only 73,500 timeshare units in all of Europe in 2007. The fact that anyone can ever trade for a week in Europe should show proof of lack of demand. Can you imagine how hard it would be to exchange for a US week if the entire country only had 735,000 units? With 73,500 you could forget it.
> 
> From ARDA:
> "The American Resort Development Association ARDA has published:
> •A total of 1,767,000 households own timeshares in the US. The number of timeshare intervals owned by consumers in the US is growing at a compound rate of 9% per year! Over three million households worldwide now own a vacation interval, with owners residing in 200 countries!"
> 
> So more than half of the timeshare owning households WORLDWIDE are US households. There are over 200 countries with timeshare owners, yet the US has more timeshare owners than the other 200 plus countries combined! Who should RCI cater to? Obviously they should and do cater to their largest market which is the US.
> 
> http://wapatotimeshares.com/why-ts-makes-sense_292.html
> 
> Facts are great things.


----------



## Carolinian

vckempson said:


> One other thing about TPU values.  With any formula, there are several inputs.  It's not always the same factor that leads to high values.  Any one input that is an outlier can skew the final number.  If utilization is a high number in Orlando, that alone could account for the high TPU values.  If you're somewhere else and the demand input is high, or the supply input is low, that could well be the driver of high TPU values.   It's not always the same situation that gives you that extra umph.



Utilization is the percentage of something that is used.  An area with an oversupply is likely to have weeks going to waste, so their utilization will not be that great.


----------



## Carolinian

"Roger" said:


> I was simply responding to why Orlando resorts might be receiving the number of points that they do.  That was the topic of conversation in my earlier post (and looking back at what was quoted in my post readers can verify that).



You make the tired old defense of RCI rentals that they are just from RCI Points Partners exchanges.  We all know that this is not so.  Heck a Tugger even posted that she found her own summer OBX week on RCI's rental lists and knew that it had been deposited for exchange and had nothing to do with Points Partners, PFD, cruises, etc.


----------



## tombo

Carolinian said:


> In fact I DO post on TUG's European equivalent, and was a moderator there for several years.
> 
> In fact when I looked at the rare hard to get locations and how RCI was underpointing many of them, I used examples from the Caribbean and mainland US, as well as Europe.  For some reason, you hate Europe and therefore want to focus on it.  You even brag that you had a free trip to Europe and did not take it.  I doubt there are many other Tuggers who hate Europe that much.
> 
> You still do not seem to comprehend that a supply and demand system is based on the TOTALITY of supply VERSUS the totality of demand.  Availibility online is ALL about the supply side and says NOTHING, NADA, ZIP about demand.  If anything, it has the opposite meaning of what you try to attribute to it.  If things are still sitting around online like they are for Orlando, that tells you that supply exceeds demand.  You won't find all those excesses sitting around for New York, San Francisco, Charleston, St. John, or London.



Did you actually pay money and join the European counterpart to TUG or were you a perpetual guest there too? That is that European socialist mentality where others pay for what the masses enjoy. Someonehas to join TUG or is would not continue to exist. Perhaps the European counterpart is government funded.

By the way I don't hate Europe. I hate France. Those cowards surrendered when the Germans marched in and we had to use our money, our weapons, and American lives to liberate them. There were a few guys who formed the French resistance and fought the Germans, but very few. We are French, we surrender. Mr Hitler please don't bomb our Arch de triumph and please spare the Louvre. We will line the streets and cheer as you march in. Now many of the French hate the US. They hate the same US that liberated their occupied country. 

On trip to France many will make rude snide smart a$$ comments about Americans in French assuming people do not understand. Ungratefull cowards.  If not for the USA they would be walking the goosestep and saying heil Hitler, yet rather than be grateful many of them are hateful. They will not get a dollar of my money. I did not turn down a free company trip to Europe, I turned down a free company trip to France. Comprenez-vous?

Went to Ireland and it was beautiful. Been there done that.I have never visited England and might do so one day, but my bucket list has an Alaskan Cruise and 2 weeks in Australia on it. Once those are done perhaps England, Spain, and Italy, but not France. I currently have no desire to spend one of my wife's limited annual vacation weeks in Europe. We love Islands and for our big trips we usually go to an Island in the Carribbean, Hawaii, or a major US city such as New York. We mix a major trip each year with drive to vacations. Few TUGGERS care about Europe of South Africa as is proven without a doubt by the limited threads and posts on those areas. 

By the way YOU are the one who constantly brings up how high the demand for Europe and SA is and how RCI cheats those who deposit their europe and SA weeks out of the TPU's YOU feel they deserve. Few here care if Europe receives 60 TPU's for a week or 5 TPU's. We don't own there. We rarelly travel there. We just don't care. You live there. You care. So what. Quit RCI. 

You ASSUME that a place with few or no weeks available for exchange has high demand, and a place with a lot of availability has little demand. However you have NO FACTS to prove your theory. RCI and II do not release that information. 

Many European resorts only have 1 unit, or 2 or 3 units. There is little availability because there are very few units. If 10% of the inventory at a huge US resort which has 15,000 total weeks is deposited there would be 1500 weeks deposited. The fact that there are a lot of weeks available is based on size of resort and total number of units. Before 1000's of RCI members exchange for those weeks, they will show as available. It takes a lot of demand to exceed the supply of available rooms at most US resorts. If 50 remain available to echange for on TUG, 1450 have already been taken. 1450 exchanges is huge demand!

In Europe a resort with 3 rooms has 150 total weeks. The same 10% deposited equals 15 total weeks. If just 15 people in RCI worldwide decide to go there the units will all be gone. That is not due to great demand , it is because of limited supply. Having 15 of 15 total depsoits exchanged for in no way translates to high demand, it is simply low supply.

If a resort has only one week deposited in RCI for exchange, and if nobody exchanges for that week, that resort had ZERO DEMAND. You would show only one unit as a fact that the resort had high demand, but in reality the only unit that was deposited was not wanted by anyone. Low inventory might not have anything to do with demand and everything to do with SUPPLY.

Try to think like a businessman rather than a government employee or a French socialist. Would you as RCI rather have 1450 of an Orlando resort's 1500 deposited weeks exchanged for at $179 a pop leaving 50 unexchanged for, or would you as RCI rather have all 15 of 15 weeks at chateau coward exchanged for at $179 each? If you choose 15 exchanges at chateau coward over 1450 exchanges at a mega US resort you should NEVER even consider leaving government work for the private FOR PROFIT sector.


1000's of people requesting and exchanging for a large US resort is absolutelly more demand than the demand created by 15 people exchanging for a house in the French countryside. The difference in what you see in RCI's availability is that the European resorts typically have less supply because the resorts are on average much smaller than US resorts. If the demand was equal, you would NEVER see an available European week at any resort for any time of the year because they would all be claimed by ongoing searches. Europe has lower supply, but that is OK because there is lower demand. I comprehend supply and demand just fine thank you very much. Do you comprehend it better from a business perspective better now?


----------



## ampaholic

Wow - what a lively discussion - I actually own a VV@P interval. 

I had no idea it had anything to do with the french lining up to salute the germans - my head is now swimming.


----------



## tombo

ampaholic said:


> Wow - what a lively discussion - I actually own a VV@P interval.
> 
> I had no idea it had anything to do with the french lining up to salute the germans - my head is now swimming.



This RCI conspiracy has global implications. Since you own at Vacation Villages you must be a part of this heinous conspiracy. Just ask Carolinian. :hysterical:


----------



## ampaholic

I used to work for a Cendant owned company and I can assure you the only conspiracy is a bunch of executives getting together saying "how can we make more money off of this?"

The people in charge were just like Mr. Crab on Sponge Bob "money, money, money"

beginning, middle and end - money, money, money.

So I am confident RCI will treat you like a king (if it makes them money) or they will panzer you flat (if it makes them money) or they will clip the users out of the best intervals (if it makes them money) or they will line up and salute the germans (if it makes them money).

Whatever they do behind it is (if it makes them money). Period


----------



## chriskre

Okay, so does anyone know where to find the European TUG forum? 
I'd love to go read about how they feel about RCI or DAE for that matter.  

Well I've gotten such a good education on supply and demand.
Unfortunately I'm one of those government employees who may not totally get it, but I want to thank you boys for the lively thread.   

As long as I can go to Orlando on the cheap, I really don't care about the rest of the details but this sure is fun.  :whoopie:


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> You still do not seem to comprehend that a supply and demand system is based on the TOTALITY of supply VERSUS the totality of demand.  Availibility online is ALL about the supply side and says NOTHING, NADA, ZIP about demand.  If anything, it has the opposite meaning of what you try to attribute to it.  If things are still sitting around online like they are for Orlando, that tells you that supply exceeds demand.  You won't find all those excesses sitting around for New York, San Francisco, Charleston, St. John, or London.





> Utilization is the percentage of something that is used. An area with an oversupply is likely to have weeks going to waste, so their utilization will not be that great.



You are just so out of gas here. 

You don't have a clue about the details of their "supply and demand formula".  You've stated as much, and as result, keep demanding full transparency.  That the system is_ "based on the TOTALITY of supply VERSUS the totality of demand"_ is pure conjecture on your part.  You have no better chance at being right on that than just flipping a coin.  

You then state that _"utilization is the percentage of something that is used"_ and_ "an area with an oversupply is likely to have weeks going to waste, so their utilization will not be that great." _ That is just plain wrong.  Utilization is one of RCI's stated inputs and *their* definition, from the web site, is that it's "How many weeks like yours have been confirmed by other members in the past?".  We're talking absolute numbers here, not percentages, so what's left over doesn't matter.  Even you aren't stupid enough to suggest that more weeks are booked in South African than in Orlando.  

This all began with your contention that RCI was putting their thumb on the scale at VV@P.  That's been absolutely disproven, at least relative to other Orlando resorts.  So now you move to plan B;  that it's Orlando being overpointed.  I'm starting to wonder if that's even true.  I'm not sure it's any more points heavy than any other premier destination that the American masses want to travel to and do travel to during peak time.  Orlando's blessing is that it's almost always peak time in the land of the Mouse.  

You've even implied on a larger scale that it's the US being given preferential treatment.  I think they call that American Exceptionalism.  My, how it must suck to be you.


----------



## ampaholic

vckempson said:


> This all began with your contention, that RCI was putting their thumb on the scale at VV@P.  That's been absolutely disproven, at least relative to other Orlando resorts.  So now you move to plan B;  that it's Orlando being overpointed.  I'm starting to wonder if that's even true.  I'm not sure it's any more points heavy than any other premier destination that the American masses want to travel to and do travel to during peak time.  Orlando's blessing is that it's almost always peak time in the land of the Mouse.


The reason I bought (resale of course)week 50 at VV@P is that I don't think that will ever go out of style - in fact I'm betting with RCI that there will be people staying there for a long time to come (well barring hurricanes).

Cendant companies do NOTHING "just to be mean" or "just to be nice" they do EVERYTHING for MONEY.


----------



## chriskre

ampaholic said:


> Cendant companies do NOTHING "just to be mean" or "just to be nice" they do EVERYTHING for MONEY.



Really?   
I think they're being pretty nice giving me the opportunity to take 10 short term vacations to visit my Mouse friend for my 75K VV Parkway triennial unit for 7.5K points a piece.  
Sure feels like "nice" to me.


----------



## vckempson

I just saw on the "US Eastern" board, a lament from a recent purchaser.



> ...based on the extremely low trading power value assigned to our week 26 in the RCI system...



And what was the dissapointing deposit value?  33 TPU's!  Here we are defending the "heavy thumb on the scale" that results in the *unreasonably high* deposit value of 33 for week 26, while someone else is *unhappy* with their *low* TPU value of 33 for week 26 in Hilton Head... both a 1 bdrm.  So where did this unhappiness come from?  They were comparing their week to a Myrtle Beach week 26 where you can get TPU's in the 40's or 50's for week 26.  

I guess it's all about perception... everything is relative.  All in all, this debate about Orlando may be much to do about nothing.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*I Resemble That Remark.*




chriskre said:


> I think they're being pretty nice giving me the opportunity to take 10 short term vacations to visit my Mouse friend for my 75K VV Parkway triennial unit for 7.5K points a piece.


You typed a mouthful. 

As if to keep spreading dissatisfaction wherever possible, however, the suits at RCI Points changed the reservation opportunity for those outstanding 7*,*500-point _Instant Exchange_ reservations to 30 days before check-in (down from 45 days ahead).

If they had more imagination & a bit of outside-the-box thinking, they could have expanded it to 60 days ahead, the way the DRI suits do it, just to make those offerings more attractive & enhance the value of that feature of the RCI Points program.  

What's next ? 

A 15-days-ahead _Instant Exchange_ window ?

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


----------



## Mel

vckempson said:


> You've even implied on a larger scale that it's the US being given prefential treatment.  I think they call that American Exceptionalism.  My, how it must suck to be you.


RCI may in fact give US members preferrential treatment, but that may simply be about the numbers.

It has clearly been established that European owners have different prefferences than US members, but RCI is a US company, and the majority of members own at US resorts, even if the majority are not US (or Candian) residents.  The fact that a percentage of European owners own at US resorts suggests that they are likely to travel to the US or Canada.  On the other hand, most US residents are not as likely to travel to Europe - many won't even travel outside their own region of the US.  To me, that suggests that the demand for US resorts is in fact going to be greater than the demand for European resorts.  

Another factor may be the way we plan our vacations.  When RCI rolled RCI Points out, one factor was when reservations could be made.  While many TUG members plan 2 years ahead, most RCI members don't.  Many of us have no idea if we will be able to get certain weeks of, because of employment situations.  RCI has conditioned us to believe we need to deposit a full year out to get maximum trade power, so many people do that, or at least they deposit as soon as they pay their annual fees (again, for many that is less than a year out).  To see "loads" of Orlando or Williamsburg weeks available isn't necessarily a reflection of low demand, but of less demand that far out - many of the people planning a trip do so 4-6 months out, so those weeks will sit in the space bank for a while.

RCI's goal is to make money.  They do that by confirming exchanges.  If they overvalue any resort, those weeks won't move, and RCI won't make money.  Whatever sweetheart deals they have with various resorts, in the end, it is of no benefit to have those weeks sit unused.  These deals have always existed, they just weren't always as obvious.  Some resorts used to sell their weeks claiming they were so popular that RCI offered a bonus week for every deposit - sounds wonderful, but we all know it was just part of the contract between the developer and RCI, and the developer was providing extra deposits to cover those bonus weeks.  How is that any different than RCI offering extra points or TPU for deposits?


----------



## ampaholic

chriskre said:


> Really?
> I think they're being pretty nice giving me the opportunity to take 10 short term vacations to visit my Mouse friend for my 75K VV Parkway triennial unit for 7.5K points a piece.
> Sure feels like "nice" to me.



Hummm -   let's see 10 visits @ $149 each (or $139 booked online) - that's $1400 or $1500 bucks plus whatever they get for the VV@P when they either rent it out or someone exchanges into it.

Seems like RCI is "making money" :rofl: but hey if you want to think they are being nice to you - go for it :rofl:

Please let's all remember RCI doesn't have to put out any cash for it's inventory - how cool is that :rofl:


----------



## chriskre

ampaholic said:


> Hummm -   let's see 10 visits @ $149 each (or $139 booked online) - that's $1400 or $1500 bucks plus whatever they get for the VV@P when they either rent it out or someone exchanges into it.
> 
> Seems like RCI is "making money" :rofl: but hey if you want to think they are being nice to you - go for it :rofl:
> 
> Please let's all remember RCI doesn't have to put out any cash for it's inventory - how cool is that :rofl:



All booked online.   
So okay I pay $1400 plus my $750 MF's = $2150.  

In exchange I'm getting 70 days in a nice 2 bedroom with my electricity paid, water paid, a nice pool that they clean and resort amenities including free internet.  I gotta eat so shopping at Publix and cooking on their stove.  
I dunno call me dumb but 70 days for $2150 comes to $30 a night.  
I pay way more than that to upkeep my own home.  Shoot, my mortgage payment is just shy of what it costs me to stay in TS's for 70 days total.  

I think I'm gonna sell my house and live full time in Orlando in TS's.  :rofl:


----------



## ampaholic

chriskre said:


> All booked online.
> So okay I pay $1400 plus my $750 MF's = $2150.
> -snip-
> 
> I think I'm gonna sell my house and live full time in Orlando in TS's.  :rofl:



Hey, don't give people ideas - soon everybody will be doing it :hysterical:


----------



## ampaholic

This is a snip from another thread - but I think it applies here.



timeos2 said:


> (Snippet from "Inside the Gate" a timeshare insider web site)
> 
> When *Interval International* released its *U.S. Membership Profile for 2010*, it reported the following bits you might find enlightening.
> Its U.S. resident members reported annual household income greater than $125,000 per year
> 88% are satisfied with their membership
> 33% would like to purchase additional holiday time
> and Interval International’s U.S. members spend about 23 nights away from home, taken as leisure time.
> Those are pretty strong numbers all around, in particular the annual household income. What are *RCI’s* figures, for comparison?
> Also determined in the profile, *Florida, California and Hawaii* are the most popular destinations members said they wanted to visit within the next two years, with *New York City* the most popular urban destination. *The Caribbean* is the number one “international” favorite destination for US residents.
> 
> [end of snippet]
> 
> So why do Fl, HW and other "overbuilt" areas get strong trade values? Because despite high inventory there is also incredible levels of demand. Even hundreds or thousands of weeks may not saturate that demand where as a few weeks from other areas and the demand is gone.  It is all relative and people want to go where they can drive easily from home, know there are year round attractions and that appeal to all ages.  It helps that there is enough to do to keep everyone busy and happy for 7 days too.  Thats why areas with great weather and many attractions are always in demand. No one has to "cook the books" to give an area like that value.


----------



## tombo

A couple of Vacation Village owners and owners at other Orlando resorts have trade for Disney in recent months. I have yet to stay in a Disney resort and want to one day to see if it is close to the hype, so I have not purchased a VV at the Parkway or other orlando resort because of the Disney block preventing people who own resorts in orlando from trading into Disney resorts. If the block is gone or not enforced, I need to go ahead and buy a Vacation at villages to take advantage of the trading power. Does RCI not enforce the block, or is there a way to get around it?


----------



## chriskre

ampaholic said:


> Hey, don't give people ideas - soon everybody will be doing it :hysterical:



Well check you out.  

With 220K points you can live in Orlando for 29 weeks.:whoopie: 

This is way better than that Christmas Mountain UDI.


----------



## chriskre

tombo said:


> A couple of Vacation Village owners and owners at other Orlando resorts have trade for Disney in recent months. I have yet to stay in a Disney resort and want to one day to see if it is close to the hype, so I have not purchased a VV at the Parkway or other orlando resort because of the Disney block preventing people who own resorts in orlando from trading into Disney resorts. If the block is gone or not enforced, I need to go ahead and buy a Vacation at villages to take advantage of the trading power. Does RCI not enforce the block, or is there a way to get around it?



I own at Hilton in Orlando and with that thru the corporate portal you can exchange into DVC but not with VV Parkway points.  I think you might be able to do a PFD with a non Disney resort and possibly do it that way but I've not done it so not sure.   It does appear bookable thru my regular RCI points account but I've heard that RCI will call you and cancel your reservation.  Haven't had the experience yet.  Maybe someone can chime in who's done it.


----------



## schiff1997

tombo said:


> A couple of Vacation Village owners and owners at other Orlando resorts have trade for Disney in recent months. I have yet to stay in a Disney resort and want to one day to see if it is close to the hype, so I have not purchased a VV at the Parkway or other orlando resort because of the Disney block preventing people who own resorts in orlando from trading into Disney resorts. If the block is gone or not enforced, I need to go ahead and buy a Vacation at villages to take advantage of the trading power. Does RCI not enforce the block, or is there a way to get around it?



My Orlando units are still blocked, so I just have to use my other week.


----------



## tombo

schiff1997 said:


> My Orlando units are still blocked, so I just have to use my other week.



So I can own an Orlando resort and trade into DVC as long as i don;t trade into DVC using an Orlando resort? 

If you log onto RCI and read at the bottom of ANY Disnay resort, RCI makes the following statement which I am copying and pasting:

"MEMBERS WHO OWN AT RCI RESORTS WITHIN A 30-MILE RADIUS OF ORLANDO CAN'T EXCH.INTO DVC RSTS. NO PETS OR SMOKING ONSITE"

This is why I haven't purchased an Orlando resort. It doesn't say that you can not exchange an Orlando resort for Disney, it says that if you OWN an Orlando resort you can't exchange into Disney. Is this wrong or is RCI just not enforcing it?


----------



## timeos2

tombo said:


> So I can own an Orlando resort and trade into DVC as long as i don;t trade into DVC using an Orlando resort?



Yes. The block applies to the resort NOT the overall account.


----------



## d2r4s

*Point Value Changes*

It seems interesting that RCI has published point values and that they would in anyway be able to change those at will would be a little suspiciose since there would be know way to at any given time to know your point values going in or exchanging. 

I personally will never deposit again to RCI, as most of my timeshares our with II or I can use any of the other exchange companies.  My Wyndham Vacation Club allows me to look before depositing and that allows me to evalute fair value before trading. 

RCI in my mind is still playing games as always.  By the way keep in mind that stockholders are far more important than owners to these big companies.:rofl: 




vckempson said:


> I've pondered this before and wondered what situations lead to this TPU value differential.I have a forthcoming new purchase at Vacation Village Prkwy in Orlando that if I deposit now, it's worth 27 TPU's but I can book the same week on RCI for 7 TPU's.
> 
> Remember, though, that RCI makes money only on booked exchanges.  We always think of supply and demand as a single calculation, but for RCI it may really be two separate equations.  For my orlando week over the 4th of July, RCI can probably book all they can get there hands on but the booking market will only bear 7 TPU's because of all the other competition out there.  On the other hand, they have to entice enough owners to deposit their weeks to keep the supply available, hence the higher deposit value.  I'm curious what other situations exist like this.  Maybe it's almost always like this with the only thing in question being the size of the differential.


----------



## tombo

d2r4s said:


> It seems interesting that RCI has published point values and that they would in anyway be able to change those at will would be a little suspiciose since there would be know way to at any given time to know your point values going in or exchanging.
> 
> I personally will never deposit again to RCI, as most of my timeshares our with II or I can use any of the other exchange companies.  My Wyndham Vacation Club allows me to look before depositing and that allows me to evalute fair value before trading.
> 
> RCI in my mind is still playing games as always.  By the way keep in mind that stockholders are far more important than owners to these big companies.:rofl:



You don't understand the new RCI program. It is VERY transparent now. Before you deposit with RCI you know EXACTLY how many points ( TPU's) you will receive for your week. You know what weeks are available and how many TPU's it will cost you to exchange for them before you deposit anything. Unlike II you can combine 2 or 3 weak deposits and get enough trading power to exchange for something none of them could exchange for by themselves. In RCI now you get to keep the change if what you deposit is worth nmore than what you exchange for, you keep the leftover points. I have received 3 weeks for one week deposited. Some here have received 5 or 6 weeks for one deposit. 

II does allow you to search before depositng, but once you deposit II gives you ZERO quantitative numbers to understand what your deposited week is worth, or what it will trade for. In the new RCI program you will get for example 25 TPU's for your depsosit. You know that before you deposit. You can search the entire RCI site and lookat ALL inventory to see what you can trade for with 25 TPU's before you deposit your week. Once you deposit your week it will remain worth 25 TPU's with a rare exception where RCI could increase the number of TPU's. It beats depositing and wondering if you aren't seeing the exchange you are looking for because nothing is available or if you are not seeing any availability because your week is not strong enough. You can see everything RCI has, and you know what it takes in TPU points to get it.

I own weeks that are just II, just RCI, and several which are both. Other than Marriott there is little reason to remain in II IMO. II has fewer resorts and fewer locations than RCI does. The areas I mainly like to travel (Florida and the southeast) are have a lot more locations in RCI than II. When In II if you don't own Marriott you are a second class member only getting to exchange for Marriott inventory after the Marriott owners have grabbed the best weeks. I quit II years ago tired of being a non Marriott owning second class II member. I rejoined II when I purchased a Marriott week, but after I sold my Marriott I quit II again. 

To each his own.


----------



## ampaholic

chriskre said:


> Well check you out.
> 
> With 220K points you can live in Orlando for 29 weeks.:whoopie:
> 
> This is way better than that Christmas Mountain UDI.



Yea -- ahh no. 

1. I don't think I could get 29 - 7500 point weeks in a row  
2. In 29 weeks I would be bound to hit the warm season - yech
3. Who would feed my cat for that long?
4. Have you actually tried Christmas Mountain? I would miss it so... :rofl:


----------



## Carolinian

Actually, RCI makes money several ways:
1) exchange fees
2) renting exchange deposits to the general public
3) membership fees.

Your theories are based entirely on RCI doing ONLY #1.  The reason they put their thumb on the scales is largely #3 with probably a dose of #2.




Mel said:


> RCI may in fact give US members preferrential treatment, but that may simply be about the numbers.
> 
> It has clearly been established that European owners have different prefferences than US members, but RCI is a US company, and the majority of members own at US resorts, even if the majority are not US (or Candian) residents.  The fact that a percentage of European owners own at US resorts suggests that they are likely to travel to the US or Canada.  On the other hand, most US residents are not as likely to travel to Europe - many won't even travel outside their own region of the US.  To me, that suggests that the demand for US resorts is in fact going to be greater than the demand for European resorts.
> 
> Another factor may be the way we plan our vacations.  When RCI rolled RCI Points out, one factor was when reservations could be made.  While many TUG members plan 2 years ahead, most RCI members don't.  Many of us have no idea if we will be able to get certain weeks of, because of employment situations.  RCI has conditioned us to believe we need to deposit a full year out to get maximum trade power, so many people do that, or at least they deposit as soon as they pay their annual fees (again, for many that is less than a year out).  To see "loads" of Orlando or Williamsburg weeks available isn't necessarily a reflection of low demand, but of less demand that far out - many of the people planning a trip do so 4-6 months out, so those weeks will sit in the space bank for a while.
> 
> RCI's goal is to make money.  They do that by confirming exchanges.  If they overvalue any resort, those weeks won't move, and RCI won't make money.  Whatever sweetheart deals they have with various resorts, in the end, it is of no benefit to have those weeks sit unused.  These deals have always existed, they just weren't always as obvious.  Some resorts used to sell their weeks claiming they were so popular that RCI offered a bonus week for every deposit - sounds wonderful, but we all know it was just part of the contract between the developer and RCI, and the developer was providing extra deposits to cover those bonus weeks.  How is that any different than RCI offering extra points or TPU for deposits?


----------



## Carolinian

Be careful, as you are just posting another fact that undermines the ''Orlando is valuable and deserves the points lite it gets'' theory.

The very fact that there are ALWAYS loads of weeks RCI is almost begging to get rid of in Orlando, at all sorts of cut price deals, shows that there is a constant glut of Orlando in the exchange system, or to put it another way, that Orlando has a very bad supply / demand curve within the RCI (and other) exchange system.




chriskre said:


> One thing I'd like to add.
> 
> If I wanted to go to Europe, I'd use II (which I've done before) , SFX or DAE instead, since they seem to get more European inventory.  If I want to go to Orlando, RCI is usually the clear winner with inventory unless I want to splurge with a Marriott in II.
> 
> Yup call me guilty  but I'm one of those sinners who is renting those oversupplied weeks from any of the nice Orlando TS's.
> 
> Interestingly enough I never use any of my TS's to trade back into Orlando, other than my DVC points.    I always either use last call, HGVC open season, 9K instant exchanges, DAE bonus weeks or II getaways or AC's.  Since I go to Orlando probably 6 or 7 times a year you know that I'm happy that there are lots and lots of cheap options to stay in since I've become quite a bit of a motel snob and won't ever be caught dead in a motel in Kissimmee.     Since most of the money that RCI makes off of me is from my Orlando stays, I totally understand as a customer of RCI why they'd thumb my scale at VV Parkway.


----------



## Carolinian

What, one comment with nothing beyond that to support it that all of Orlando is overpointed just like VV@P amounts to being ''absolutely disproven''?  To be frank, given the history of VV@P in the Points system, I have not really analyzed other resorts there, put there has been at least one other post of someone here who has looked at Orlando and said otherwise.

It would be interesting to know if the overpointing is endemic to Orlando, because if so it amounts to an even bigger corruption of the exchange system.

And as usual, you completely ignore the demand side.  The fact is that there is a glut of Orlando that RCI has to flog off at all sorts of cheap prices just to try to get some value out of it.  Giving high points lite values to such weeks is either totally nuts or totally corrupt.

Again, as usual, you take the provinical attitude of looking at only where you think the American travelling public wants to go, NOT where the totality of timeshare owners who deposit in RCI want to exchange to.  It is that more limited universe that is relevant to these discussions.

I guess under your theory, Orlando MUST be a whole lot more valuable as an exchange deposit than, say, Sanibel / Captiva or the Florida Keys, since RCI gets many many times the number of deposits from Orlando as either of those places.






vckempson said:


> This all began with your contention that RCI was putting their thumb on the scale at VV@P.  That's been absolutely disproven, at least relative to other Orlando resorts.  So now you move to plan B;  that it's Orlando being overpointed.  I'm starting to wonder if that's even true.  I'm not sure it's any more points heavy than any other premier destination that the American masses want to travel to and do travel to during peak time.  Orlando's blessing is that it's almost always peak time in the land of the Mouse.


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> What, one comment with nothing beyond that to support it that all of Orlando is overpointed just like VV@P amounts to being ''absolutely disproven''?  To be frank, given the history of VV@P in the Points system, I have not really analyzed other resorts there, put there has been at least one other post of someone here who has looked at Orlando and said otherwise.



Then please do analyze it.  Tell us the deposit values at other Orlando resorts that suggest VV@P is points heavy.  You can't.  You won't find it.  I've done extensive testing and VV@P is right in line with the others.  I've posted some of that comparative information here to back that up.  Dispute it if you will, but give us something factual.

As for demand.  Can you provide us the numbers you have?  I think if you can give us those hard figures, then we could do some calculations.  Once we know the revenue stream that's coming out of Orlando, or even Myrle Beach for that matter, then we'll know what we're talking about.  Oh yea, I forgot.  You don't have any demand numbers.  All you've got is conjecture, pure conjecture.  

Well here's something a bit beyond conjecture, something a little more factual.



> Originally Posted by timeos2
> (Snippet from "Inside the Gate" a timeshare insider web site)
> 
> Also determined in the profile, Florida, California and Hawaii are the most popular destinations members said they wanted to visit within the next two years, with New York City the most popular urban destination. The Caribbean is the number one “international” favorite destination for US residents.



And if you think that Orlando has a heavy hand on the scale, then you need to look at Myrtle beach during the summer time.  RCI must be in bed with them as well, cause they are getting 40 or 50 TPU's for deposit vs Orlando only getting 33.  MB isn't even one of the three listed popular destinations, yet they're way ahead in deposit values.  The conspiracy must be spreading.  Now it's the entire Southeast.  What will we do?  I think maybe it's time to sell Orlando and buy in Myrtle Beach.     We haven't seen *any* comparative information that would suggest Orlando is getting more points than other more deserving locations in the US.  Deposit values are readily available to all, so it should be easy to produce,  if true.  Even the Outer Banks In NC gets better deposit values at it's peak.

Let's get real.  RCI is trying to balance all the factors and reduce wasted weeks as best they can.  I'm sure they will still be tweaking their formula decades from now, no different than today.  Will they continue to cater to those who enhance their bottom line.  Damn right they will... and well they should.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> Actually, RCI makes money several ways:
> 1) exchange fees
> 2) renting exchange deposits to the general public
> 3) membership fees.
> 
> Your theories are based entirely on RCI doing ONLY #1.  The reason they put their thumb on the scales is largely #3 with probably a dose of #2.



No, my theories are not based on only #1.

Deposits of weeks into the system drive all 3 factors.  Without deposits by owners (or developer weeks in some cases), there would be nothing to rent to the general public.  Thus they have to offer something of value to get those deposits.  They also have to offer more value for the weeks they are more likely to be able to rent easily.

Membership fees are only paid if the members choose to remain members.  If RCI doesn't keep the majority of the membership happy, that supply of cash with dry up - along with the deposits made by those same members.

Supply and Demand both play a factor in how RCI sets their TPU prices, as they do in most markets.

The TPU price dictates both how many units will be deposited AND how many are likely to be taken in exchange or rented.  If the TPU value is set too low, nobody will deposit the desired week.  If it is on the high side, there may be a glut of deposits - but under RCI's model, that doesn't have to be matched completely by exchange demand.  They look at total demand from all revenue streams, and look for a balance that will produce the more income for them.

You must also remember that the perceived value of certain resorts within the exchange system was perverted long before Cendant became involved.  We were offered "bonus weeks" for touring resorts the first year we owned, and when we toured those resorts, we were told _RCI_ offered more bonus weeks for the deposit of any red week from those same resorts, because they were in such high demand (yeah, right).  Soon enough we learned that wasn't really the case - that those bonus weeks were underwritten through the deposit of developer weeks.  Those units didn't trade any better than the independant resort down the street, yet the perception was of greater value.

Perhaps you know where one might find statistics about RCI's membership - what percentage owns in the US or Canada, what percentage lives here?  Of those that don't, but who want to visit, where are they likely to travel?

I suspect the demand you speak of for Europe is spread among all of Europe, while the demand among Europeans for US destinations is spread among a limit number of destinations.  How many Europeans want to fly to the US for a week on Cape Cod?  Cape Cod has high demand in the summer due to very high local demand.  Orlando and other similar destinations have similar high demand, based on slightly lower worldwide demand.


----------



## dmarcin

*another view*

Has anyone taken into consideration that RCI will Get an extra exchange fee and $$ to combine points when you use a lower amount of their vacation points?


----------



## ampaholic

dmarcin said:


> Has anyone taken into consideration that RCI will Get an extra exchange fee and $$ to combine points when you use a lower amount of their vacation points?



I don't think RCI charges to combine RCI Points (yet) - but there is a fee to combine TPU's (aka points lite).


----------



## martinimary

*exchanging into disney*

Just checking to make sure I have this correct... I can exchange into Disney from my account as long as I don't use an orlando week to do it.

I am going this summer using a combined weeks exchange.There were alot of inventory showing in my weeks account but none in my points account.  The rci person told me Disney can determine where the inventory goes, weeks or points.  I thought the whole point of points was to be able to see everything.
Thanks,
Mary Madden


----------



## MichaelColey

FWIW, I just don't see that RCI is slighting Europe when it comes to high valuations.

Here's a look at the current number of units available (and percentages of the total units available in that area) that take a trading power of 33 or higher:

Total: 992 of 179,024 (0.55%)
USA: 535 of 69,261 (0.77%)
Europe: 200 of 31,573 (0.63%)
Caribbean & Bermuda: 148 of 9,560 (*1.55%*)
Mexico: 54 of 47,149 (0.11%)
Asia: 21 of 6,945 (0.30%)
Canada: 17 of 5,456 (0.31%)
Central America: 15 of 689 (*2.18%*)
Africa & The Middle East: 2 of 2,535 (0.08%)

Biggest Areas Inside the US:

Florida: 169 of 16,315 (1.04%)
Orlando: 146 of 6,311 (*2.31%*)
Orlando excluding 12/18-1/1: 0 of about 6000 (0.00%)
Pacific Coast: 114 of 8,509 (1.34%)
Hawaii: 93 of 1,544 (*6.02%*)
Carolinas and the Souteast: 81 of 9,804 (0.83%)

Biggest Area Inside Europe:

Spain: 152 of 6616 (*2.30%*)

Europe has a higher than average concentration of high-value intervals, and Spain in particular has one of the highest concentration of high-value intervals in the world.

If you exclude Christmas and New Years, Orlando has NO high-value intervals.


----------



## chriskre

ampaholic said:


> Yea -- ahh no.
> 
> 1. I don't think I could get 29 - 7500 point weeks in a row
> 2. In 29 weeks I would be bound to hit the warm season - yech
> 3. Who would feed my cat for that long?
> 4. Have you actually tried Christmas Mountain? I would miss it so... :rofl:



I bet you could get 29 weeks in a row.  Might not be all 2 bedrooms but there is always something for 7500 points somewhere in Orlando or the vicinity.

Cat?  Well yeah that's a bit of a problem.  You might get them an automatic feeder. :rofl:  (Just kidding).  I've got 2 cats myself and I miss them every time I go away even if for 2 or 3 days.  

As for CMV, haven't been yet.  Not sure I'll be going but the RCI reviews are terrible.  Says pretty much that the cabins should be torn down and rebuilt.
I'd much prefer to go to Orlando.   



Carolinian said:


> Be careful, as you are just posting another fact that undermines the ''Orlando is valuable and deserves the points lite it gets'' theory.
> 
> The very fact that there are ALWAYS loads of weeks RCI is almost begging to get rid of in Orlando, at all sorts of cut price deals, shows that there is a constant glut of Orlando in the exchange system, or to put it another way, that Orlando has a very bad supply / demand curve within the RCI (and other) exchange system.



Carolinian, I appreciate your being the defender of the weak and your efforts to be a consumer advocate but honestly I think that the reason most of us hang out here on TUG is so that we can learn to find the little loopholes or big gaping holes that exist in the system and work it to our advantage.  

I truly have no interest in RCI being fair to a bunch of South Africans or European timeshare owners.  Not that I have anything against them, I'm sure they're lovely owners who I'd be happy to share a frosty beer with in the pool, but honestly most of us if you haven't noticed yet, don't care.   

I say if you can't beat them then join them.   Life is just too darn short to defend a cause like timeshare fairness.  I'm more interested in defending real worthwhile causes like foster care and adoption so I can take those truly weak links in our society to Disney World and maybe change their little worlds in the process.   



vckempson said:


> Will they continue to cater to those who enhance their bottom line.  Damn right they will... and well they should.



I hope RCI is reading this and continues to cater to their Orlando groupies.
If not someone else would be happy to take their place.


----------



## Carolinian

Again you seem to fail to understand that value is based on the relationship of supply AND demand, not one factor alone.  And high values are not, by themselves, a mark of being overpointed.

High values combined with a glut of inventory, like Orlando ARE a mark of being overpointed.  Giving 50 points lite for a deposit at the very same time that the very same week is being offered for exchange for 10 points lite as Tuggers found and posted with respect to VV@P IS a mark of being overpointed.

All of Orlando being overpointed is indeed a much bigger problem for the integrity of the exchange system than just one resort.  And since VV@P has the biggest oversupply of inventory in the entire RCI system, as Bootleg told us, they should really have a lower points lite value than other Orlando resorts.

You can certainly tell from what is online where demand exceeds supply, because the inventory is all gone, and where supply exceeds demand, because the inventory is still there, and where supply greatly exceeds demand, because LOTS of inventory is still there.  It's not rocket science.




vckempson said:


> Then please do analyze it.  Tell us the deposit values at other Orlando resorts that suggest VV@P is points heavy.  You can't.  You won't find it.  I've done extensive testing and VV@P is right in line with the others.  I've posted some of that comparative information here to back that up.  Dispute it if you will, but give us something factual.
> 
> As for demand.  Can you provide us the numbers you have?  I think if you can give us those hard figures, then we could do some calculations.  Once we know the revenue stream that's coming out of Orlando, or even Myrle Beach for that matter, then we'll know what we're talking about.  Oh yea, I forgot.  You don't have any demand numbers.  All you've got is conjecture, pure conjecture.
> 
> Well here's something a bit beyond conjecture, something a little more factual.
> 
> 
> 
> And if you think that Orlando has a heavy hand on the scale, then you need to look at Myrtle beach during the summer time.  RCI must be in bed with them as well, cause they are getting 40 or 50 TPU's for deposit vs Orlando only getting 33.  MB isn't even one of the three listed popular destinations, yet they're way ahead in deposit values.  The conspiracy must be spreading.  Now it's the entire Southeast.  What will we do?  I think maybe it's time to sell Orlando and buy in Myrtle Beach.     We haven't seen *any* comparative information that would suggest Orlando is getting more points than other more deserving locations in the US.  Deposit values are readily available to all, so it should be easy to produce,  if true.  Even the Outer Banks In NC gets better deposit values at it's peak.
> 
> Let's get real.  RCI is trying to balance all the factors and reduce wasted weeks as best they can.  I'm sure they will still be tweaking their formula decades from now, no different than today.  Will they continue to cater to those who enhance their bottom line.  Damn right they will... and well they should.


----------



## Carolinian

Some of RCI's actions speak louder than words when it comes to relative demand for Europe and the US.  First, prior to morphing into Rents Condos Instead, RCI used to give European owners who deposited European weeks 2 for 1 credit if they exchanged those deposits into North America.  Second, RCI ring fences a certain amount of European inventory that is only availible to European members, so it won't be gobbled up by Americans.  From some comparisions I ran with someone with a US account, at least in the areas I was interested in, there did not appear to be any similar effort to protect North American inventory from Europeans.  The later practice continues even into Points Lite.





Mel said:


> No, my theories are not based on only #1.
> 
> Deposits of weeks into the system drive all 3 factors.  Without deposits by owners (or developer weeks in some cases), there would be nothing to rent to the general public.  Thus they have to offer something of value to get those deposits.  They also have to offer more value for the weeks they are more likely to be able to rent easily.
> 
> Membership fees are only paid if the members choose to remain members.  If RCI doesn't keep the majority of the membership happy, that supply of cash with dry up - along with the deposits made by those same members.
> 
> Supply and Demand both play a factor in how RCI sets their TPU prices, as they do in most markets.
> 
> The TPU price dictates both how many units will be deposited AND how many are likely to be taken in exchange or rented.  If the TPU value is set too low, nobody will deposit the desired week.  If it is on the high side, there may be a glut of deposits - but under RCI's model, that doesn't have to be matched completely by exchange demand.  They look at total demand from all revenue streams, and look for a balance that will produce the more income for them.
> 
> You must also remember that the perceived value of certain resorts within the exchange system was perverted long before Cendant became involved.  We were offered "bonus weeks" for touring resorts the first year we owned, and when we toured those resorts, we were told _RCI_ offered more bonus weeks for the deposit of any red week from those same resorts, because they were in such high demand (yeah, right).  Soon enough we learned that wasn't really the case - that those bonus weeks were underwritten through the deposit of developer weeks.  Those units didn't trade any better than the independant resort down the street, yet the perception was of greater value.
> 
> Perhaps you know where one might find statistics about RCI's membership - what percentage owns in the US or Canada, what percentage lives here?  Of those that don't, but who want to visit, where are they likely to travel?
> 
> I suspect the demand you speak of for Europe is spread among all of Europe, while the demand among Europeans for US destinations is spread among a limit number of destinations.  How many Europeans want to fly to the US for a week on Cape Cod?  Cape Cod has high demand in the summer due to very high local demand.  Orlando and other similar destinations have similar high demand, based on slightly lower worldwide demand.


----------



## Carolinian

This little ad hominem attack is a broken record with you, isn't it?

Let me set the record straight, yet again.  Maybe it will take with you this time.

I was a paid member of TUG for a number of years.  The paid aspect is for access to the reviews, sightings, and sales price stats, and is well worth the cost.  I enjoyed access to those parts of TUG and not only sat back and read them for my fee, but also contributed on all of those boards, writing resort reviews, posting sightings, and posting sales prices I was aware of (HAVE YOU?).

Then one year when I went to renew my TUG membership, the renewal process had changed and it appeared that my real name would now be connected to my screen name on this board, at least in TUG records.  As I was at the time an HOA president, I did not want there to be any chance that some of those I was rather outspoken about (specifically a certain exchange company) would retaliate against my resort.  Even though, I resigned that post when I took a job in Europe, I still do not like the thought of the possibility of them trying to retaliate against me as an individual, either.  Before you start calling that paranoid or conspiracy theory or one of your other terms, let me tell you that on a European board I had pointed out some uncomfortable facts about one timeshare resort chain, and shortly thereafter had a fellow moderator from that board contact me and tell me that the head man in that development company was inquiring about my real name and anything else anyone knew about me.  So, there is, indeed, rational reason for such concern.

Also let me explain to you something you apparently don't know, and that is how message boards, like TUG, are financed.  The membership fee pays for those private parts of the site, but it is advertising revenue that pays for the public parts.  I have a good friend and fellow HOA BOD colleague who has a company that puts up websites, by the hundreds, just for the revenue stream from the pay-for-click ads.  What drives that advertising stream is content.  Thus someone who puts up lots of posts is actually far more valuable to a site than someone who just pays a fee for the private sections of the site but never posts on the public sections.  Whether or not one pays for access to the private aspects of the site do not have a darn thing to do with whether or not they are helping the public aspects of it stay afloat financially.  Posting content to drive traffic on the site is what does that.




tombo said:


> Did you actually pay money and join the European counterpart to TUG or were you a perpetual guest there too? That is that European socialist mentality where others pay for what the masses enjoy. Someonehas to join TUG or is would not continue to exist. Perhaps the European counterpart is government funded.


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> Giving 50 points lite for a deposit at the very same time that the very same week is being offered for exchange for 10 points lite as Tuggers found and posted with respect to VV@P IS a mark of being overpointed.
> .



You keep using this as confirmation of being overpointed.  The very lynch pin of your argument, however, is based on flawed, incorrect facts.  There isn't a unit at VV@P that gives 50 points.  *Not ever*.  There are only two weeks the entire year that give in the 40's for deposit, and that's week 51 and 52.  Beyond that, you are talking in the teens for the fall and late spring and in the 20's for peak demand season. (Jan-March and June-Aug.).

How does that compare to the Outer Banks Beach Club during their peak season?    They get over 40 points for most of the summer.  What about Myrtle Beach in the summer?  They also get in the 40's.  VV@P deposit values during peak season, almost 1/2 OBX and Mrytle Beach,  just aren't out of line.  From a layperson's perspective, there is no injustice to find.

Now back to the spread between depost values at VV@P.  While it's not a spread of 50 vs 10, there is still a spread.  It's more like 27 vs 14, though admittedly it's all over the map.  That was the OP's question, why?  VV@P is still in development with an active sales office.  There are obviously many, many unsold weeks that will be in the system.  Until those weeks are sold, you'll always find an over abundance of weeks in RCI, at a lower TPU cost.  Once those developer weeks are gone, the spreads will likely tighten a bit to be more in line with other Orlando resorts.  Excess developer weeks will always make an exchange easier to get. We've all seen that over the years.   Will RCI penalize owner's while the developer is selling those weeks?  The apparent answer is no. 

Evidence of this would be Wyndham National Harbor.  (Washington DC)  I occassionally saw spring weeks in RCI available for about 15 TPU's.  The deposit value is in the 40's.  That's a larger spread than VV@P.  Only a fool would argure that it's an indication of no demand.  It's the excess developer weeks at work.  Once National Harbor is sold out, you will never, ever see those weeks in RCI.  The sister resort, Wyndham at Old Town, Alexandria, is booked solid around the clock, never to be found in RCI.

It's OK to have an opinion, which you clearly do.  You need to do some of your own digging, though, to come up with some facts... *any* facts, to back up that opinion.  Your constant conjecture is getting old... and meaningless.

Ultimately, the lesson here, if you really want some cheep TPU's for trading, is to buy a lockoff during peak demand time at a solid vacation spot.  Split it on deposit and you'll get trade points at a super low cost.  That is the only reason, repeat *ONLY reason* that VV@P results in lots of TPU's on deposits.

BTW, even OBX is giving more on deposit than it cost to trade back in.  (deposit TPU is 36 vs 30 to trade back in.  That's for Outer Banks Beach Club for 8/26/12)


----------



## Carolinian

The example on VV@P at 50 vs. 10 was reported by another Tugger and discussed quite a bit.  Nobody disputed it then, or since until you have.  I wonder if RCI adjusted the numbers since then after the spotlight was shown upon it.  I know I pointed out on another board where RCI gave points lite for a studio in a barn in November almost as high as a 2BR in summer in a hard to get resort in the same region of England , and RCI subsequently knocked down the numbers on the barn studio twice.  Maybe shedding light on some of these things helps correct some of the inequities.

The splitting and recombining of 2BR lockoff units for too many points lite is another inequitity that needs to be corrected.  In a place like Orlando, it would seem that the 2BR would have far more demand in the first place, since the main group going to Orlando is families with children.  Why encourage people to deposit the less demanded 1BR variants?  One example of an out of whack number for VV@P I have used occaisionally is from a report by an owner there who split and recombined her February 2BR week for a high points lite total that was substantially more than it took to get 2BR weeks in a lot of very high demand / very low supply places and times.  February would not seem to be peak season in Orlando as the kids are in school then.

Are your VV@P numbers for the whole 2BR unit or just half of it as a lockoff?

Again ''peak season'' is not the key.  It is the amount of supply RELATIVE TO the amount of demand.  For most of the year, Orlando simply has too much of the former for the latter.  For summer MB or summer OBX or summer England, that is far from the case.




vckempson said:


> You keep using this as confirmation of being overpointed.  The very lynch pin of your argument, however, is based on flawed, incorrect facts.  There isn't a unit at VV@P that gives 50 points.  *Not ever*.  There are only two weeks the entire year that give in the 40's for deposit, and that's week 51 and 52.  Beyond that, you are talking in the teens for the fall and late spring and in the 20's for peak demand season. (Jan-March and June-Aug.).
> 
> How does that compare to the Outer Banks Beach Club during their peak season?    They get over 40 points for most of the summer.  What about Myrtle Beach in the summer?  They also get in the 40's.  VV@P deposit values during peak season, almost 1/2 OBX and Mrytle Beach,  just aren't out of line.  From a layperson's perspective, there is no injustice to find.
> 
> Now back to the spread between depost values at VV@P.  While it's not a spread of 50 vs 10, there is still a spread.  It's more like 27 vs 14, though admittedly it's all over the map.  That was the OP's question, why?  VV@P is still in development with an active sales office.  There are obviously many, many unsold weeks that will be in the system.  Until those weeks are sold, you'll always find an over abundance of weeks in RCI, at a lower TPU cost.  Once those developer weeks are gone, the spreads will likely tighten a bit to be more in line with other Orlando resorts.  Excess developer weeks will always make an exchange easier to get. We've all seen that over the years.   Will RCI penalize owner's while the developer is selling those weeks?  The apparent answer is no.
> 
> Evidence of this would be Wyndham National Harbor.  (Washington DC)  I occassionally saw spring weeks in RCI available for about 15 TPU's.  The deposit value is in the 40's.  That's a larger spread than VV@P.  Only a fool would argure that it's an indication of no demand.  It's the excess developer weeks at work.  Once National Harbor is sold out, you will never, ever see those weeks in RCI.  The sister resort, Wyndham at Old Town, Alexandria, is booked solid around the clock, never to be found in RCI.
> 
> It's OK to have an opinion, which you clearly do.  You need to do some of your own digging, though, to come up with some facts... *any* facts, to back up that opinion.  Your constant conjecture is getting old... and meaningless.
> 
> Ultimately, the lesson here, if you really want some cheep TPU's for trading, is to buy a lockoff during peak demand time at a solid vacation spot.  Split it on deposit and you'll get trade points at a super low cost.  That is the only reason, repeat *ONLY reason* that VV@P results in lots of TPU's on deposits.
> 
> BTW, even OBX is giving more on deposit than it cost to trade back in.  (deposit TPU is 36 vs 30 to trade back in.  That's for Outer Banks Beach Club for 8/26/12)


----------



## vckempson

The highest deposit value in the 40's is for a 2 bdrm.  I've never seen it over 50.  In February, a Tugger gave away a week 52 and the stated TPU's for his 2 bdrm was in the 40's as well. I don't recollect any changes in deposit values since I started pursuing it last November.  

While I'm the beneficiary of the split TPU values, I fully agree.  RCI only gives a marginally higher deposit value for a 2 bdrm than for a 1 bdrm.  That was the case in OBX as well as Myrtle Beach, and it should be more. 

Not sure if you saw my edited addendum on my last post, but even OBX gives more deposit TPU's than it costs to trade back in.  That may be something that's fundemental to the system.  Maybe their strategy is to give people an incentive to deposit and trade, thus getting more exchange fees.


----------



## Carolinian

*Well, I have given you a few days to correct these misrepresentations or apologize and you haven't, so I will do a little math for you to put your numbers in proper perspective.  

You use ''units'' for European timeshare but ''intervals'' for US timeshare.  The shell game you are playing with your ''facts'' is that you expect readers to miss that these are different units of measurement.  There are typically 51 INTERVALS to one UNIT.  A few resorts that have two maintenance weeks instead of one may have only 50.  By using different measurements to make the comparision you grossly distort the relationship between the two.

Now lets do some simple math.

73,540 units X 51 intervals per unit = 3,750,540 intervals in Europe

6,500,000 intervals divided by 51 (intervals per unit) = 127,450 units in US.

So, if you use the same measurement to compare Europe and the US, they really are not nearly as far apart as you try to make it appear.  You try to make it appear so with a sleight of hand by using different measurements.  So much for your ''facts''.*



tombo said:


> I did a little more research to find FACTS about timeshares by country.
> 
> 
> According to The European Timeshare Industry Report 2008, published by the Resort Development Organisation (RDO) and written by The Christel DeHaan Tourism and Travel Research Institute, University of Nottingham, UK, there were a total of 73,540 timeshare units in European resorts in 2007.
> 
> 
> http://www.rciaffiliates.com/europe/industry/facts-figures
> 
> As of January 1, 2007, there were 1,641 timeshare resorts in the United States. The total number of weekly equivalent intervals owned was approximately 6.5 million.
> http://www.vacationbetter.org/content1202
> 
> 6.5 million timeshare intervals in the US in 2007.  Only 73,500 timeshare units in all of Europe in 2007. The fact that anyone can ever trade for a week in Europe should show proof of lack of demand. Can you imagine how hard it would be to exchange for a US week if the entire country only had 735,000 units? With 73,500 you could forget it.
> 
> From ARDA:
> "The American Resort Development Association ARDA has published:
> •A total of 1,767,000 households own timeshares in the US. The number of timeshare intervals owned by consumers in the US is growing at a compound rate of 9% per year! Over three million households worldwide now own a vacation interval, with owners residing in 200 countries!"
> 
> So more than half of the timeshare owning households WORLDWIDE are US households. There are over 200 countries with timeshare owners, yet the US has more timeshare owners than the other 200 plus countries combined! Who should RCI cater to? Obviously they should and do cater to their largest market which is the US.
> 
> http://wapatotimeshares.com/why-ts-makes-sense_292.html
> 
> Facts are great things.


----------



## Carolinian

Places where it is consistent that deposits are given higher values than it takes for trades like Orlando, it is a sign of padding the values of deposits.  Many places, it appears that deposits over a year out net lower values, but that is often for both deposit and exchanging in, another flaw in the system to devalue weeks that they actually have a longer time to find a place for.

I think your OBX example was for late August a time that demand has significantly dropped off after children have gone back to school.  Still more demand than supply at that time of year, but less than in high summer.

As has been discussed several times on TUG, the best way to generate exchange fees is to do like-for-like high value weeks exchange, that both tend to turn around quickly and to generate replacement weeks that do the same in turn to create a chain of trades each generated an exchange fee.  When they are giving out a summer So Cal beach week or a Sanibel snow bird week and getting Orlando in return, it just sits in the bank with the rest of the Orlando glut and does not generate than chain of exchanges with the associated exchange fees.




vckempson said:


> The highest deposit value in the 40's is for a 2 bdrm.  I've never seen it over 50.  In February, a Tugger gave away a week 52 and the stated TPU's for his 2 bdrm was in the 40's as well. I don't recollect any changes in deposit values since I started pursuing it last November.
> 
> While I'm the beneficiary of the split TPU values, I fully agree.  RCI only gives a marginally higher deposit value for a 2 bdrm than for a 1 bdrm.  That was the case in OBX as well as Myrtle Beach, and it should be more.
> 
> Not sure if you saw my edited addendum on my last post, but even OBX gives more deposit TPU's than it costs to trade back in.  That may be something that's fundemental to the system.  Maybe their strategy is to give people an incentive to deposit and trade, thus getting more exchange fees.


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


> Biggest Area Inside Europe:
> 
> Spain: 152 of 6616 (*2.30%*)
> 
> Europe has a higher than average concentration of high-value intervals, and Spain in particular has one of the highest concentration of high-value intervals in the world.
> .



I guess you saw my posts on the areas in Europe that are overbuilt, which included Spain?  Looks like RCI might be playing the same numbers game in Europe of overpointing the overbuilt areas.  I haven't really looked that closely at Spain, as other than the Canary Islands, it is one of those ''been there, done that'' places for me and there are lots of more interesting parts of Europe I would rather go to.

The pattern of high values for the dime a dozen locations but mediocre values for the rare, hard to find, high demand locations is what is disturbing, and you are finding more evidence of it.  I agree that it is not all in Orlando.


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> Places where it is consistent that deposits are given higher values than it takes for trades like Orlando, it is a sign of padding the values of deposits.



Then I guess you'll have to include all of Myrtle Beach in that category.  You'll also have to include all of Southern California.   

Spot checking units in those two places for July of 2012, you'll get significantly more on deposit than the cost to trade back in.  That's a little more than 12 months out, when RCI gives you maximum deposit points.   Those I checked got over 10 more deposit points than it cost to trade back in.  Orlando is clearly not unique in that regard.   

Just maybe, if they want desirable weeks to get deposited, they've got to give them something more than just a comparable trade.  Otherwise, they'll just go back to their home resort each year.  If they do that, then there's no exchange fees for RCI.


----------



## tombo

Carolinian said:


> This little ad hominem attack is a broken record with you, isn't it?
> 
> Let me set the record straight, yet again.  Maybe it will take with you this time.
> 
> I was a paid member of TUG for a number of years.
> 
> Then one year when I went to renew my TUG membership, the renewal process had changed and it appeared that my real name would now be connected to my screen name on this board, at least in TUG records.  .    Before you start calling that paranoid or conspiracy theory or one of your other terms, let me tell you that on a European board I had pointed out some uncomfortable facts about one timeshare resort chain, and shortly thereafter had a fellow moderator from that board contact me and tell me that the head man in that development company was inquiring about my real name and anything else anyone knew about me.  So, there is, indeed, rational reason for such concern.
> 
> Thus someone who puts up lots of posts is actually far more valuable to a site than someone who just pays a fee for the private sections of the site but never posts on the public sections.  Whether or not one pays for access to the private aspects of the site do not have a darn thing to do with whether or not they are helping the public aspects of it stay afloat financially.  Posting content to drive traffic on the site is what does that.



I read your answer. Take out all of the spin and:

YOU USED TO BE A PAYING MEMBER of TUG. Everything else is BLAH,BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

On a European board (not TUG) someone asked who you were because they didn't like your posts. The European TUG didn't release your information, but you got scared. TUG didn't release your information, but what if they did? No that is not a conspiracy theory or paranoia. Look at the facts. No one found out who you were, but what if they did? What if they put out a hit on you? Of course you assure me this is a fact and not a conspiracy theory because a head man ALLEGEDLY asked what your real name was. For you it is a fact that ALL should be very worried when they post bad things about developers or exchange companies on the internet because why? Because so many people have disappeared after making such posts. Please reference mysterious disappearances and deaths related to timeshares. This is fascinating. Reads like an Ian Fleming book. So since someone inquired as to your identity on ANOTHER FORUM you felt so frightened that you could not join TUG because your identity might be divulged leaving you in grave danger. Yes your posts do enlighten all TUGGERS of the unknown dangers of posting about timshare developers and exchange companies. We owe you our lives. 

OMG. I posted on TUG that I am at the Wyndham Panama City yesterday. My phone just rang and I answered it. Wyndham wants me to come to a special meeting. I have been telling people about resales. I joined TUG. They have found me. It is too late for me, I am done. The Wyndham hit squad knows who I really am, and where I am. Save yourselves. 

Can you say PARANOID? What if I knew who you really are? What if RCI found out? WHAT IF DELTA found out?  Do you feel you could be in real danger? Really? How could that not be construed to be paranoid?

See the real fact is I don't care who you really are, RCI doesn't care who you really are, DELTA doeasn't care, no one really cares who you really are. You feel self important enough to worry about people knowing your identity, yet you have stated that you are a lawyer working in Europe in a governmental function and that you have a paid driver on occassion. You are from North Carolina but living in Europe. You were a moderator on a European forum. You were on an HOA. Perhaps you are blowing your own cover. It is time for you to come in from the cold mr superspy. People on the net are starting to figure out your real identity.  

My favorite part of your explanation and spin about why you no longer pay to be a member of TUG is that you are more valuable to TUG as a non paying guest than the paying members are BECAUSE..... wait for it..... here it comes...... BECAUSE YOU POST MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE. :hysterical: YOU USE tug more THAN ANY PAYING MEMBER, yet in your mind it is your insightful posts forever maligning RCI have kept TUG afloat. Without your 7000 plus posts TUG would have folded. If only everyone would quit TUG and just post more this could be a better site. 

Here is another option. How about if you kept posting incessantly but ALSO JOINED TUG? Then you could be the most valuable TUG member ever. I know you already feel that you are the most valuable TUG guest, but as a member you could complain about RCI exchanges on the sightings board too. Your expertise and hate for RCI needs to be spewn everywhere, not just in the guest sections of TUG.

I asked earlier if you could say PARANOID? Perhaps more importantly can you say NARCISSISM?
Definition:" Narcissism is the personality trait of egotism, vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others." 

Let's see you and you alone HATE RCI and everything they have done and do. You malign everyone who likes anything about RCI. You don't care about how well the new program is working for others, you just care about how you can show people who are using it with success that they are doing it at the expense of others. You have no facts about demand, but you are the expert. When you state it, it becomes fact. Any who disagree are ignorant and do not understand supply and demand. They don't understand Europe or South Africa demand. They don't understand the demand for the OBX. I don't know if you can say narcissism, but you have without a doubt demonstrated it repeatedly.


----------



## tombo

Carolinian said:


> *Well, I have given you a few days to correct these misrepresentations or apologize and you haven't, so I will do a little math for you to put your numbers in proper perspective.
> 
> You use ''units'' for European timeshare but ''intervals'' for US timeshare.  The shell game you are playing with your ''facts'' is that you expect readers to miss that these are different units of measurement.  There are typically 51 INTERVALS to one UNIT.  A few resorts that have two maintenance weeks instead of one may have only 50.  By using different measurements to make the comparision you grossly distort the relationship between the two.
> 
> Now lets do some simple math.
> 
> 73,540 units X 51 intervals per unit = 3,750,540 intervals in Europe
> 
> 6,500,000 intervals divided by 51 (intervals per unit) = 127,450 units in US.
> 
> So, if you use the same measurement to compare Europe and the US, they really are not nearly as far apart as you try to make it appear.  You try to make it appear so with a sleight of hand by using different measurements.  So much for your ''facts''.*



Shouting does not make your assumptions turn into facts.

 Everything I posted is referenced. You ASSUME 51 intervals per unit, many are 50 per unit with 2 weeks for Maintenance. European timeshares are composed of 12 different countries. Even using your guesstimate figures the 12 European countries have a little over half the total number timeshare weeks as the US alone. You argumnt has now become that yes the US is a lot larger, but not 2 times as large? If 40% to 45% of the entire supply of timeshare weeks worldwide is in North Amercia, then RCI correctly focuses on their largest market which is the US.

More facts: 
31% of total number of resorts are located in North America with 25% of the total number of resorts located in Europe, but 41% of all accomodation units are found in North America due to larger size (80 units per resort North America versus 60 per resort average worldwide).
http://books.google.com/books?id=Bp...r of timeshare weeks in united states&f=false

I don't shout to make my point, I reference facts. Facts is facts. Your shouting is just annoying.


----------



## Carolinian

Amazing! You still refuse to fess up about trying to mislead readers by your little shell game of switching the measurement used.  BTW, typing in all caps is SHOUTING on the net, not using bold type or larger type, but then again, I needed to do something to get your attention.  Admit it, by usiing different measurements, you tried to pull the wool over the eyes of Tuggers.




tombo said:


> Shouting does not make your assumptions turn into facts.
> 
> Everything I posted is referenced. You ASSUME 51 intervals per unit, many are 50 per unit with 2 weeks for Maintenance. European timeshares are composed of 12 different countries. Even using your guesstimate figures the 12 European countries have a little over half the total number timeshare weeks as the US alone. You argumnt has now become that yes the US is a lot larger, but not 2 times as large? If 40% to 45% of the entire supply of timeshare weeks worldwide is in North Amercia, then RCI correctly focuses on their largest market which is the US.
> 
> More facts:
> 31% of total number of resorts are located in North America with 25% of the total number of resorts located in Europe, but 41% of all accomodation units are found in North America due to larger size (80 units per resort North America versus 60 per resort average worldwide).
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Bp...r of timeshare weeks in united states&f=false
> 
> I don't shout to make my point, I reference facts. Facts is facts. Your shouting is just annoying.


----------



## Carolinian

No, everything else is just your ignorence of how website finances work.  For private sites, membership fees pay, such as the private parts of TUG. For public sites, like the public parts of TUG, it is advertising that pays, and the number of hits a site gets drives advertising revenue and content drives the hits.  The more content, the more hits, and thus more advertising revenue.  If you would look at the facts on how these sites get their revenues instead of your own conjectures, you wouldn't be making your silly ad hominem attacks.  My friend whose company creates websites to profit from the advertising has both full time employees and others who do piece work for pay in order to create content.  Posters on TUG give it free, and the more someone posts, the more free content, and therefore adverising revenue they give TUG.  If you cannot understand the concept, then talk to someone in that business who does.  That way you will not have to use scarcasm to display your ignorance.

And I gather from your non-response, that NO, you have not contributed to the TUG databases like resort reviews, sales data, and sightings or you would have said you did.

On the European board, a CEO of a major timeshare developer contacted a fellow moderator whom he knew and inquired about my real name and other info.  My fellow moderator did not have access to that info in the first place, but he warned me the guy was looking.  I don't think it would bother me so much if a nobody such as yourself was after that info, but it got my attention that the CEO of a major timeshare developer was. It that matter I pointed out what was really going on with a negative move that resort chain had made for its members and how their spin did not add up, but I also pointed out the future implications of that move.  As here, there were diehard loyalists of that resort chain who posted vehement denials that those things were going to happen.  Well recently, there have been posts that the very things I predicted were indeed starting to happen elsewhere in that resort chain, so I was on the money in my predictions.  The temptation of an ''I told you so post'' was resisted, but at least one person reporting these new moves mentioned the earlier warnings of these things that I had posted.  I suspect that it was my analysis of his likely future moves that probably upset the CEO more than my comments on the moves he had already made.

I will admit that RCI sceptics have not been frequenting TUG very much since the debacle of the class action lawsuit.  And I know from emails I get that some are intimidated by the caustic attitude of some in the unofficial Team RCI on these boards.  Your own posts are some of the more caustic.  We had one of the lead plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit who used to frequently post on the shananigans of RCI on TUG, as well as a volunteer lawyer who was heavily involved including recruiting the lead plaintiffs.  Hopefully people like that, and many others, have not given up completely on timeshare, and we still need their voices to be heard.  One RCI sceptic who used to post frequently and now only does rarely, had one of those now rare posts that I want to look up when I have the time, because he mentioned some resorts out west that he was aware of which were overpointed in RCI Points due to inside connections between developers and RCI.  It would be very interesting to see how those resorts fared in Points Lite.

And to correct your typical distortion, I do not hate RCI.  I opposed some of the things that Cendant / Wyndham has done which damage the industry since they took over RCI, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for those at RCI who created the best exchange company timesharing has ever known under the leadership of Crystal deHaan.  I have never advocated people cancelling their membership, and as a lot of this crap was unfolding, I suggested that people take a wait and see attitude, while expecting the worst but hoping it would not be as bad as that.  I still suggest use of RCI for their cheap rentals, as timesharers might as well get them as letting them go to the general public.

You are a relative newcomer here.  You only go back to 2007, two years after this version of the TUG board was put in place.  I go back three or four versions of the TUG board.  The date displayed on my info is the time period when TUG was switching over from its previous version of the board.  You therefore would not have been around when I was the first one here to call RCI out on planning to set up a timeshare rental program to the general public.  That was my first battle with the unofficial Team RCI on these boards, and they were swearing up and down that I was taking things out of context and that RCI would never do anything like that.  But in the end, we saw who was correct.  Heck some of the Team RCI group were still deniers that RCI was renting exchange deposits a long time after most on TUG realized that they were.




tombo said:


> I read your answer. Take out all of the spin and:
> 
> YOU USED TO BE A PAYING MEMBER of TUG. Everything else is BLAH,BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
> 
> On a European board (not TUG) someone asked who you were because they didn't like your posts. The European TUG didn't release your information, but you got scared. TUG didn't release your information, but wat if they did? No that is not a conspiracy theory or paranoia. Look at the facts. No one found out who you were, but what if they did? What if they put out a hit on you? Of course you assure me this is a fact and not a conspiracy theory because a head man ALLEGEDLY asked what your real name was. For you it is a fact that ALL should be very worried when they post bad things about developers or exchange companies on the internet because why? Because so many people have disappeared after making such posts. Please reference mysterious disappearances and deaths related to timeshares. This is fascinating. Reads like an Ian Fleming book. So since someone inquired as to your identity on ANOTHER FORUM you felt so frightened that you could not join TUG because your identity might be divulged leaving you in grave danger. Yes your posts do enlighten all TUGGERS of the unknown dangers of posting about timshare developers and exchange companies. We owe you our lives.
> 
> OMG. I posted on TUG that I am at the Wyndham Panama City yesterday. My phone just rang and I answered it. Wyndham wants me to come to a special meeting. I have been telling people about resales. I joined TUG. They have found me. It is too late for me, I am done. The Wyndham hit squad knows who I really am, and where I am. Save yourselves.
> 
> Can you say PARANOID? What if I knew who you really are? What if RCI found out? WHAT IF DELTA found out?  Do you feel you could be in real danger? Really? How could that not be construed to be paranoid?
> 
> See the real fact is I don't care who you really are, RCI doesn't care who you really are, DELTA doeasn't care, no one really cares who you really are. You feel self important enough to worry about people knowing your identity, yet you have stated that you are a lawyer working in Europe in a governmental function and that you have a paid driver on occassion. You are from North Carolina but living in Europe. You were a moderator on a European forum. You were on an HOA. Perhaps you are blowing your own cover. It is time for you to come in from the cold mr superspy. People on the net are starting to figure out your real identity.
> 
> My favorite part of your explanation and spin about why you no longer pay to be a member of TUG is that you are more valuable to TUG as a non paying guest than the paying members are BECAUSE..... wait for it..... here it comes...... BECAUSE YOU POST MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE. :hysterical: YOU USE tug more THAN ANY PAYING MEMBER, yet in your mind it is your insightful posts forever maligning RCI have kept TUG afloat. Without your 7000 plus posts TUG would have folded. If only everyone would quit TUG and just post more this could be a better site.
> 
> I asked earlier if you could say PARANOID? Perhaps more importantly can you say NARCISSISM?
> Definition:" Narcissism is the personality trait of egotism, vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others."
> 
> Let's see you and you alone HATE RCI and everything they have done and do. You malign everyone who likes anything about RCI. You don't care about how well the new program is working for others, you just care about how you can show people who are using it with success that they are doing it at the expense of others. You have no facts about demand, but you are the expert. When you state it, it becomes fact. Any who disagree are ignorant and do not understand supply and demand. They don't understand Europe or South Africa demand. They don't understand the demand for the OBX. I don't know if you can say narcissism, but you have without a doubt demonstrated it repeatedly.


----------



## johnmcguir

Hey Tombo,
What did you mean by 
"because of the Disney block on people who own in the Orlando area"?


----------



## vckempson

> What did you mean by
> "because of the Disney block on people who own in the Orlando area"?



You can't use points from a resort within 30 miles of Disney to trade back into a Disney Resort in Orlando.  That includes combined points where *ANY* of the previously uncombined points came from a "blocked" resort.  The block is at the resort level not the account level.  For example, while I own a week in Orlando, I also have non Orlando weeks that I can still use to trade into Disney's resorts.


----------



## sandkastle4966

On other boards, I can screen out posts from specific individuals - can you do that here?  I am tired of having to scroll thru the screaming (and ranting) of certain GUESTS on these boards.  I dont' bother reading them anymore, but there are SOOOOOOO many posts - and the screaming put me over the edge........


----------



## "Roger"

Use the pull down menu "User CP" (just below the "TUG BSS" logo in the upper left hand corner).  Under the Miscellaneous heading their is a "Buddy Ignore List" option.


----------



## tombo

vckempson said:


> You can't use points from a resort within 30 miles of Disney to trade back into a Disney Resort in Orlando.  That includes combined points where *ANY* of the previously uncombined points came from a "blocked" resort.  The block is at the resort level not the account level.  For example, while I own a week in Orlando, I also have non Orlando weeks that I can still use to trade into Disney's resorts.



From your experience and others RCI is apparently allowing Orlando owners to trade for Disney as long as none of the TPU's used for the trade came from an Orlando resort. 

This is why I was worried. Here is the RCI exclusion quote from RCI:
""MEMBERS WHO OWN AT RCI RESORTS WITHIN A 30-MILE RADIUS OF ORLANDO CAN'T EXCH.INTO DVC RSTS. NO PETS OR SMOKING ONSITE"

I think sometime in the future RCI could and probably will stop anyone who owns in Orlando from exchanging for Disney. The exclusion does not say you can't trade an Orlando week for a Disney resort, it says if you own at a resort within 30 miles of Orlando that you can't exchange into Disney. I am guessing Disney is new to RCI and wanting exchanges from potential buyers so they are not making RCI enforce the rule, but at anytime in the future they want they can. RCI has lawyers and so does DVC. They didn't word it that way by accident. JMHO.


----------



## vckempson

Your concerns are valid.  I've got an ace up my sleeve.  My dad also has an RCI account and we both have the same name (I'm the 3rd).  If needed we can book weeks under either account and each use them.  Fortunately, he doesn't have any Orlando weeks.  

For others, if you had to, I guess you could establish another RCI account, (Spouse's name only) and deposit non Orlando weeks into that to make Disney exchanges.  Even with that added cost of another RCI account, it's still a cheap way to get into Disney's resorts.


----------



## vckempson

"Roger" said:


> Use the pull down menu "User CP" (just below the "TUG BSS" logo in the upper left hand corner).  Under the Miscellaneous heading their is a "Buddy Ignore List" option.



I think I'll do that as well.  This could turn into the Tug version of "Shunning" by the Quakers.


----------



## tombo

vckempson said:


> I think I'll do that as well.  This could turn into the Tug version of "Shunning" by the Quakers.



Count me in. I just put the anti-RCI guest on ignore.

This brings up the age old question with a TUG twist. People have always debated if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it did it make a sound?

Now the rhetorical question on  TUG becomes if a guest makes a post and all members have him on ignore, did he really post at all?


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Hey, Let's Exercise A Bit Of Tolerance Here.*




tombo said:


> Count me in. I just put the anti-RCI guest on ignore.
> 
> This brings up the age old question with a TUG twist. People have always debated if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it did it make a sound?
> 
> Now the rhetorical question on  TUG becomes if a guest makes a post and all members have him on ignore, did he really post at all?


Several times I have nearly sprained my elbow while trying to pat myself on the back congratulating myself for all the snide remarks & witty observations I did _not_ send in on this discussion topic. 

The fact remains that, like'm or not, the information & opinions expressed by the particular TUG-BBS guest in question are based on a certain set of experiences & preferences reaching way back to the early days of timesharing, & are shared with the rest of us as a way of expanding our knowledge & outlook, not as a way of getting us annoyed. 

If you don't like reading those entries, it's easy enough just skipping right on by without altering any BBS settings.  The best advice for TUG-BBS, as with just about the whole internet, is _Take What You Like & Leave The Rest_. 

I've got to hand it to anybody, guest or otherwise, who keeps on responding in (mostly) moderate language despite being on the receiving end of multiple slings & arrows from those with strongly held contrasting opinions.  TUG-BBS would be a dreary place if everybody participating in it was in total agreement on everything all the time -- not to mention how much less informative TUG-BBS would be under those conditions.  

There is no doubt in my mind that what _Carolinian_ says works best for him really does -- for him -- & that he offers his views here for the (potential) enlightenment of the rest of us, not to get anybody groused off.  More power to him. 

Meanwhile, the rest of us can follow suit or do the exact opposite -- whatever works best for us. 

Is this a great web site or what ? 

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


----------



## timeos2

AwayWeGo said:


> There is no doubt in my mind that what _Carolinian_ says works best for him really does -- for him -- & that he offers his views here for the (potential) enlightenment of the rest of us, not to get anybody groused off.  More power to him.
> 
> Meanwhile, the rest of us can follow suit or do the exact opposite -- whatever works best for us.
> 
> Is this a great web site or what ?
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



I have deeply felt differences of opinion on timeshares with Steve (Carolinian) but would miss his input if I ignored it.  I already know he wants the "good old days" (to him at least) back and no matter how many opposing and well documented differing views are posted we'll NEVER change his mindset.   He fails to see his bias toward a certain region in the US and now Europe as clouding his view but it still makes for interesting back and forth.  I can write off the repetitive items and look for anything new fairly quickly.  

I've yet to place anyone here on "ignore" although there have been a few that came very close to being my first.  Heck I'll bet a few TUG posters have or have at least considered place me on "ignore". I don't doubt some of my very strongly held opinions could irritate some. If so that's their choice and it's great we give them an option.  One of the beauties of TUG.


----------



## ampaholic

*Hey, I resemble that reply*



timeos2 said:


> I have deeply felt differences of opinion on timeshares with Steve (Carolinian) but would miss his input if I ignored it.  I already know he wants the "good old days" (to him at least) back and no matter how many opposing and well documented differing views are posted we'll NEVER change his mindset.   He fails to see his bias toward a certain region in the US and now Europe as clouding his view but it still makes for interesting back and forth.  I can write off the repetitive items and look for anything new fairly quickly.
> 
> I've yet to place anyone here on "ignore" although there have been a few that came very close to being my first.  Heck I'll bet a few TUG posters have or have at least considered place me on "ignore". I don't doubt some of my very strongly held opinions could irritate some. If so that's their choice and it's great we give them an option.  One of the beauties of TUG.



The reason this thread has 6 pages of "input"  and is included on the TUG newsletter is "because" of the great back and forth here - not because we are all chanting "yea RCI - take more from my wallet" in unison.

I can read an opinion I disagree with - even just to look for weak spots or I can skip it - it's easy 

I can even thank Carolinian for taking the time to "CARE" and "SHARE".
sorry for shouting


----------



## chriskre

tombo said:


> This is why I was worried. Here is the RCI exclusion quote from RCI:
> ""MEMBERS WHO OWN AT RCI RESORTS WITHIN A 30-MILE RADIUS OF ORLANDO CAN'T EXCH.INTO DVC RSTS. NO PETS OR SMOKING ONSITE"



I guess it's possible that they wrote it this way on purpose but could it also be that most people don't own multiple weeks of timeshare so it was written with that idea in mind.  Meaning many ONLY own in Orlando.  I know several friends whose only ownership is in Orlando and to them that is the world of timesharing.   



AwayWeGo said:


> The fact remains that, like'm or not, the information & opinions expressed by the particular TUG-BBS guest in question are based on a certain set of experiences & preferences reaching way back to the early days of timesharing, & are shared with the rest of us as a way of expanding our knowledge & outlook, not as a way of getting us annoyed.
> 
> Meanwhile, the rest of us can follow suit or do the exact opposite -- whatever works best for us.
> 
> Is this a great web site or what ?
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​[/FONT][/SIZE]



Alan, yes this is a great website and hopefully we can all just learn to get along.  I love the banter back and forth.  It makes for such a lively thread.   

On one of my other frequented forums I've been put on ignore by one of the whinies who can't stand a little positive comments about RCI. Truly I don't get it but that's his choice.  I think Carolinian although holding onto opinions that can't be convinced otherwise, still has years of valuable insight into the mindset of resorts that are truly valuable contributions.  It's not that difficult to just skip those rants and see the nugget burried in there somewhere.   




ampaholic said:


> The reason this thread has 6 pages of "input"  and is included on the TUG newsletter is "because" of the great back and forth here - not because we are all chanting "yea RCI - take more from my wallet" in unison.
> 
> I can read an opion I disagree just to look for weak spots or I can skip it - it's easy
> 
> I can even thank Carolinian for taking the time to "CARE" and "SHARE".
> sorry for shouting



Well said.  Thanks for posting this.


----------



## vckempson

Ok,  it's time for us all to gather round the fire for our Kum 'ba Ya moment.  My eyes are already starting to tear up.  It's beautiful, just beautiful.   

Seriously though, I'm a newcomer here and appreciate the back and forth banter as well.  I've forced myself to become more educated, just to keep up with the argument.  By and large, it's a great group of people to share discussions with.  On line groups aren't my cup of tea, but this one is great.  Thanks everyone for your acceptance and help.   

Also, without RCI's new transparency with points lite, we wouldn't even be able to have this discourse in any meaningful way.  Almost everything was guesswork in the old days.


----------



## chriskre

vckempson said:


> Ok,  it's time for us all to gather round the fire for our Kum 'ba Ya moment.  My eyes are starting tear up.  It's beautiful, just beautiful.


:rofl: 



That's more like it.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*I Resemble That Remark.*




vckempson said:


> Also, without RCI's new transparency with points lite, we wouldn't even be able to have this discourse in any meaningful way.  Almost everything was guesswork in the old days.


Yeh -- but for odd & inexplicable reasons, some folks say they liked it better the old way. 

Go figure. 

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


----------



## vckempson

AwayWeGo said:


> Yeh -- but for odd & inexplicable reasons, some folks say they liked it better the old way.
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



If you've got a crappy week, ignorance is bliss.


----------



## MichaelColey

I eat at some fast food restaurants where it's cheaper to order the burger, fries and drink separately than it is to buy it from the "value" menu.  That's not very fair to those who are bad at math or who are too lazy to check.  To top it off, very few of the fast food restaurants I eat at show how they calculate the value menu prices, and the incremental prices compared to just ordering the sandwich varies.  That's not fair and it's not fully transparent.

I shop at stores where the unit price in the largest box of some items isn't the best deal.  That's not very fair to those who are bad at math or who are too lazy to check.

Many of the places I shop are cheaper here than they are on the coasts or overseas.  That's not fair to those who live in those places.

I traded a car in at a dealership, but instead of putting my old car in their used car section, they sold it at an auction.

I'm not going to stop eating at those restaurants or shopping in those stores or trading in cars at that dealership, just because "it's not fair" or because they're not totally transparent.  I'm going to learn what works best for me.

For exchange companies, RCI works the best for me at this time.  They have a tremendous selection.  I can look and see exactly what I'm going to get for my deposits.  That helps me make better decisions on what to own, what to deposit, etc.  I can combine deposits to get into timeshares that were previously unavailable to me.  I appreciate that flexibility.  I can deposit some things and exchange right back into the for less trading power.  I'm certainly not going to complain about that.


----------



## MuranoJo

Alan, I couldn't agree more and thanks for posting that.

Carolinian has a lot of history that is valuable to at least some of us, and he has been very helpful to many on the board over the years.


----------



## tombo

AwayWeGo said:


> There is no doubt in my mind that what _Carolinian_ says works best for him really does -- for him -- & that he offers his views here for the (potential) enlightenment of the rest of us, not to get anybody groused off.  More power to him.
> 
> Meanwhile, the rest of us can follow suit or do the exact opposite -- whatever works best for us.
> 
> Is this a great web site or what ?
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



Carolinian says do not deposit with RCI, do not exchange with RCI. So that is how he feels, and he has every right to his opinion, but it provides no insight as to how to successfully exchange through the new program.  The only thing valuable to him is renting weeks from RCI. 

Carolinian refuses to exchange in RCI but feels obligated to interject and admonish those who do. Not one exchange has been made by Carolinian  under the new program, yet he is the self proclaimed RCI expert on trading values, availability, demand, and supply. Perhaps if Carolinian would open his mind he could be enlightened. However rather than listening and learning through other TUGGERS successes he remains closed minded and anti-RCI. 

We are not discussing RCI from decades ago because that is ancient history. I used to be able to buy a burger for 25 cents. Complaining about burgers costing $2 unlike the good old days does not change a thing about the cost of burgers in todays market. If someone can show me how I can buy a burger today for 25 cents, that is something I want to hear about. Otherwise discussing the good old days is simply nostalgia. Discussing the current RCI weeks program and how it works can be enlightening and helpful with current and future exchanges.

No matter what success and great exchanges people post about on this forum, Carolinian must post about how a trade like that is so rare, possible only because of dirty deals between RCI and developer, done at the expense of Europe, etc, etc, etc. What is helpful is people discussing HOW they are getting value out of the current RCI program, not posting about any and every problem one can show about RCI past, present, and future.

Michael Coley has mastered the new system better than most. Several  others here have found angles, identified many of the best traders, weeks with the most TPU's, and other ways to get the most out of the new RCI  exchange system. These are the people who enlighten, educate, and inform us. I have learned a lot from several of these people. I have not learned one thing that is helpful in the new RCI program from Carolinian. In fact if anyone has learned anything about the new program from Carolinian which has helped them use the program better in any way, please enlighten us all with the imparted wisdom I somehow missed.

Carolinian simply berates and belittles those who say anything positive about the new program and RCI exchanges. He constantly complains about RCI, points lite, RCI's renting of weeks (which none of us like but which is the only thing in RCI Carolininan actually uses), what RCI charges to exchange for a week, what RCI give for depositing a week, and anything else he can think of to complain about. In what way can that possibly be construed as enlightening?


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Learning From Vicarious Experience (Positive & Negative).*




tombo said:


> In fact if anyone has learned anything about the new program from Carolinian which has helped them use the program better in any way, please enlighten us all with the imparted wisdom I somehow missed.


Shux, I didn't say I agree with anything the guy has to say about RCI or TPUs. 

In fact, I get tired of getting lumped in with the _RCI Can Do No Wrong_ crowd if I so much as suggest that some RCI feature has worked OK for me. 

Paraphrasing, he thinks OBX is great & Orlando is the pits, also that Europe is outstanding but USA sux canal water -- purely matters of personal preference (his, not mine).    

Even so, I don't think he indulges in contrariness just for its own sake.  Rather, he has a perspective that evidently works for him (or used to) & he gets prickly when anybody challenges that. 

He may be on solider ground when he cautions against using out-of-state non-lawyers for closing services (deed preparation & recording) on timeshare resales, I don't know.

In any case, he's got plenty more timeshare experience & savvy than I have -- although I doubt he gets any more fun out of timeshares than I get.  

I do get a twisted kind of enjoyment in witnessing the TUG-BBS slings & arrows he brings upon himself, but I hate seeing things turn personal as they sometimes do when there's such sharp disagreement as he sparks -- & I don't care to do any piling on. 

Also, thanks to _Carolinian_, I now specially enjoy _Raiding The Weeks Inventory_ via RCI Points _Instant Exchange_, etc.  I mean, if it weren't for _Carolinian_, I would never even have heard of  _Raiding The Weeks Inventory_.  Now I do it however & whenever I can. 

So thanks for all your words of timeshare wisdom, _Carolinian_.  Keep'm coming. 

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


----------



## chriskre

vckempson said:


> If you've got a crappy week, ignorance is bliss.



It WAS bliss, but the blinders are off thanks to the lawsuit and we've gotta deal with the realities of RCI whether we like it or not.  If we really hate it we can just switch to another exchange company if that's an option.  We asked for this transparency so there's no point in putting the blinders back on.   

I've personally got a few duds TPU wise and honestly don't care since I use them myself,  but I still see stuff I can exchange it for in RCI that is still a viable vacation option despite the low TPU's if I wanted to exchange.  

I think that really evaluating what works for my own scenario instead of comparing to others incessantly on the forums has made me really evaluate that I'm satisfied with my ownerships.  They may not be tigers but they're good enough for me and that's really what counts in the end.


----------



## ampaholic

chriskre said:


> It WAS bliss, but the blinders are off thanks to the lawsuit and we've gotta deal with the realities of RCI whether we like it or not.  If we really hate it we can just switch to another exchange company if that's an option.  We asked for this transparency so there's no point in putting the blinders back on.
> 
> I've personally got a few duds TPU wise and honestly don't care since I use them myself,  but I still see stuff I can exchange it for in RCI that is still a viable vacation option despite the low TPU's if I wanted to exchange.
> 
> I think that really evaluating what works for my own scenario instead of comparing to others incessantly on the forums has made me really evaluate that I'm satisfied with my ownerships.  They may not be tigers but they're good enough for me and that's really what counts in the end.



I'm with you, I have one kitten (opposite of tiger) that I had even advertised on Craigslist as "free to a good home" - but I wasn't getting any leads.

Well long story short I checked out Pla:ignore: :ignore: um inter:ignore: :ignore: nge and got a nice trade and a bonus week! 

It pays to shop


----------



## Carolinian

There are some on this board who just cannot seem to understand supply and demand.

Orlando ranked a lowly 17th on the Trip Advisor poll of places members wanted to go:

http://www.tripadvisor.com/TCDestinations-g191-United_States.html

Yet is has light years more timeshare than the 16 destinations that rank above it.  What does that tell you about relative supply and demand?


----------



## Carolinian

Wrong!  The lawsuit was to try to stop RCI's program of rentals to the general public.  It did not seek ''transparency''.  The limited ''transparency'' in the ''settlement'' (aka sellout) was just one of the meaningless trinkets that the class action lawyers used to justify their cutting and running with their million dollar legal fees earned for doing absolutely nothing to help their clients.

What we lost in Points Lite was the ability to trade within a range or band, and that is a much bigger loss for members than anything gained.




chriskre said:


> It WAS bliss, but the blinders are off thanks to the lawsuit and we've gotta deal with the realities of RCI whether we like it or not.  If we really hate it we can just switch to another exchange company if that's an option.  We asked for this transparency so there's no point in putting the blinders back on.
> 
> I've personally got a few duds TPU wise and honestly don't care since I use them myself,  but I still see stuff I can exchange it for in RCI that is still a viable vacation option despite the low TPU's if I wanted to exchange.
> 
> I think that really evaluating what works for my own scenario instead of comparing to others incessantly on the forums has made me really evaluate that I'm satisfied with my ownerships.  They may not be tigers but they're good enough for me and that's really what counts in the end.


----------



## Carolinian

Well, Tombo, it is NOT all about exchanging through the new RCI Points Lite.  It is about how to get the best value out of your timeshare week, and what Points Lite has done has made that program often NOT the best value.  The best value for many lies in a mix of independent exchange companies.  With your tunnel vision focused only on RCI, you do not want to acknowledge that independents are now the answer for many.  You are so bound up with RCI that you blow a gasket anytime anyone not so in love with the Brave New World of RCI wants to suggest that other options are better bets. To you, only those who use RCI are ''enlightened''.  All you want to do with the independents is bash them.  I at least point out the aspects of RCI that are genuinely still useful, such as their cheap rentals.

As far as ''none of us [current pro-RCI posters] liking RCI's rentals'' you are dead wrong.  Several of the current crop of the unofficial Team RCI are, in fact, longtime supporters of RCI's rental program and have posted quite a few times on TUG in support of that rental program.  There is a somewhat overlapping group of Orlando rah-rahs and in that second group are indeed some people who have stood up against the rental program.

Your devotion to RCI is such that you deliberately misrepresent numbers to try to back up your position, and did not even fess up to it when I called you out on it.  When I had to do it a second time, all you essentially did was complain about the bold type of my second effort to get you to admit you manipulations.

The bottom line is that you simply do not want the message that using independents is a good alternative for many to using a seriously degraded RCI.  You engage in personal attacks to try to intimidate, and that may scare off some but I have a thicker skin and you are not going to scare me off.

You are an advocate of RCI and I am an advocate of the independents.  We disagree on the best way forward for timesharers, but you have tried to make this personal for a long time.  We should be able to discuss these matters without getting down to that level. 



tombo said:


> Carolinian says do not deposit with RCI, do not exchange with RCI. So that is how he feels, and he has every right to his opinion, but it provides no insight as to how to successfully exchange through the new program.  The only thing valuable to him is renting weeks from RCI.
> 
> Carolinian refuses to exchange in RCI but feels obligated to interject and admonish those who do. Not one exchange has been made by Carolinian  under the new program, yet he is the self proclaimed RCI expert on trading values, availability, demand, and supply. Perhaps if Carolinian would open his mind he could be enlightened. However rather than listening and learning through other TUGGERS successes he remains closed minded and anti-RCI.
> 
> We are not discussing RCI from decades ago because that is ancient history. I used to be able to buy a burger for 25 cents. Complaining about burgers costing $2 unlike the good old days does not change a thing about the cost of burgers in todays market. If someone can show me how I can buy a burger today for 25 cents, that is something I want to hear about. Otherwise discussing the good old days is simply nostalgia. Discussing the current RCI weeks program and how it works can be enlightening and helpful with current and future exchanges.
> 
> No matter what success and great exchanges people post about on this forum, Carolinian must post about how a trade like that is so rare, possible only because of dirty deals between RCI and developer, done at the expense of Europe, etc, etc, etc. What is helpful is people discussing HOW they are getting value out of the current RCI program, not posting about any and every problem one can show about RCI past, present, and future.
> 
> Michael Coley has mastered the new system better than most. Several  others here have found angles, identified many of the best traders, weeks with the most TPU's, and other ways to get the most out of the new RCI  exchange system. These are the people who enlighten, educate, and inform us. I have learned a lot from several of these people. I have not learned one thing that is helpful in the new RCI program from Carolinian. In fact if anyone has learned anything about the new program from Carolinian which has helped them use the program better in any way, please enlighten us all with the imparted wisdom I somehow missed.
> 
> Carolinian simply berates and belittles those who say anything positive about the new program and RCI exchanges. He constantly complains about RCI, points lite, RCI's renting of weeks (which none of us like but which is the only thing in RCI Carolininan actually uses), what RCI charges to exchange for a week, what RCI give for depositing a week, and anything else he can think of to complain about. In what way can that possibly be construed as enlightening?


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> There are some on this board who just cannot seem to understand supply and demand.
> 
> Orlando ranked a lowly 17th on the Trip Advisor poll of places members wanted to go:
> 
> http://www.tripadvisor.com/TCDestinations-g191-United_States.html
> 
> Yet is has light years more timeshare than the 16 destinations that rank above it.  What does that tell you about relative supply and demand?



You do realize that the article doesn't list places most members were going to visit, had visited, or even wanted to visit, right?  It's a ranking of best destinations to visit, based on qualitative factors but NOT based on planned trips or actual travelers that go there.  

It's purely a list a great places to go.  Using your logic, we could then assume that all Gold Crown resorts have more visitors than No Crown resorts.  And before you say, "of course they do".  That would mean that a Gold Crown in the Ozarks is a more popular destination and get more visitors than a popular No Crown resort in Southern California or Hawaii.

Come on.  In looking at the list, do you really think more people travel to Anchorage or Seattle than Orlando?  Now who's trying to twist and pervert the facts?


----------



## tombo

Carolinian said:


> Well, Tombo, it is NOT all about exchanging through the new RCI Points Lite.    I at least point out the aspects of RCI that are genuinely still useful, such as their cheap rentals.



What a joke. You have not pointed out a single aspect of RCI's new program that you like. You complain that RCI rents out weeks deposited by owners for exchange to others, yet you personally love to rent those personally while depositing nothing that other RCI members can exchange for or rent. You use the part of the system you hate the most, the deposited weeks RCI rents out rather than offering for exchange only.



Carolinian said:


> As far as ''none of us [current pro-RCI posters] liking RCI's rentals'' you are dead wrong.  Several of the current crop of the unofficial Team RCI are, in fact, longtime supporters of RCI's rental program and have posted quite a few times on TUG in support of that rental program.  There is a somewhat overlapping group of Orlando rah-rahs and in that second group are indeed some people who have stood up against the rental program.



We have all complained and agreed that it is a shame that RCI basically won the right to rent out member's depsoited inventory. Many threads were spawned where everyone complained about the fact that RCI was renting lots of their BEST inventory to others that should be available only for exchange. You also have complained about RCI renting out deposited weeks on many occassions. Yes you complain that RCI rents out weeks deposited by owners for exchange to others, yet you personally love to rent those personally. It is like buying stolen property for cheap prices after ranting about the high local crime rate.




Carolinian said:


> Your devotion to RCI is such that you deliberately misrepresent numbers to try to back up your position, and did not even fess up to it when I called you out on it.  When I had to do it a second time, all you essentially did was complain about the bold type of my second effort to get you to admit you manipulations.



First I do not have to respond to you when you demand. I have asked you REPEATEDLY to back up one single claim of yours about demand with facts, and you have presented zero facts. Stillwaiting and I am not going to pitch a hissy fit and post in bold like a baby throwing tantrum. Several other TUGGERS have requested the same facts backing up your theories on demand from you, and you still have presented ZERO FACTS, only your opinions stated as facts. I referenced many facts which you did not refute with facts, you simply try to pick them apart. The closest you have come to any facts is showing trip adviser's top travel choices in 2011. The problem with that is that it doesn't cater to timesharing, bt rather to all travellers. When discussing the top demand in RCI, we need facts on the top demand from RCI, and nobody but RCI has those figures.



Carolinian said:


> The bottom line is that you simply do not want the message that using independents is a good alternative for many to using a seriously degraded RCI.  You engage in personal attacks to try to intimidate, and that may scare off some but I have a thicker skin and you are not going to scare me off.



I am not scared off either by being called ignorant, uninformed, and uneducated, etc. When one responds to you in a manner you do not like it is a personal attack. What is it called when you tell me to enroll in a community college to takea basic econ course detailing supply and demand? What is it meant to be when you say that I am ignorant with regards to the laws of supply and demand? Yes your terms of endearment used about myself and others here are always the nicest and most respectful. You live in a dream world where you are courteous and respectfull and always RIGHT while all others are rude, disrespectful, and WRONG.


I never said that independents are not an alternative. However for most locations and most deposits the independents are not a viable alternative. I am not going to pul a Carolinian and rehash everything, but I showed that locations I visit such as the smoky mountains, the panhandle, and several other locations in the southeast have VIRTUALLY ZERO locations available in the independents. I showed availability on DAE (which I am a member of) and SFX, and it will not work for me. I piointed out that most of the weeks TUGGERS own and deposit are not EVEN ACCEPTABLE trades for SFX. How can one use SFX if they will not even accept your week for exchange? RCI only gives you 17 points, however they give you something versus NOTHING in the independent company which will not even accept most deposits for trade.



Carolinian said:


> You are an advocate of RCI and I am an advocate of the independents.  We disagree on the best way forward for timesharers, but you have tried to make this personal for a long time.  We should be able to discuss these matters without getting down to that level.



I agree. The next time you type that I DON"T UNDERSTAND THE BASICS OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND, the next time you TYPE THAT I AM IGNORANT, the next time you type any similar warm fuzzies about me or others, perhaps you could delete it and not return to THAT LEVEL you so despise but constantly espouse.

I think RCI is the best exchange program for the majority of exchangers at the moment. There are exceptions like SFX possibly being better for those who mainly trade for Hawaii, San Fransisco, California, and Europe, but not in every instance even for those locations, and not for those who like to go many other places where SFX and DAE have little if any inventory or resorts. 

I just returned from an Oceafront RCI exchange at the Panama City Beach Wyndham. In SFX they have ZERO resorts in Panama City, the number one ranked beach in the Florida by trip adviser for 2011, an the number 12 ranked beach worldwide in 2011. You cabn't exchange for PC thru SFX, and you can't deposit a PC week for excange using SFX. Yes that independent is so much better of a choice. Compare ZERO PC choices with SFX to RCI which has 8 resorts in Panama City. Yes the independent is much better. I am so stupid for going on an exchange I wanted using RCI when i could have limited myself to SFX and NEVER had a vacation to that resort, or even to the beach anywhere on the entire Florida panhandle! SFX doesn't offer a single oceanfront resort in Destin, Fort Walton, Panama City, Orange Beach, or Gulf Shores. What a great alternative to RCI they offer since RCI which has resorts at all of these locations and SFX has ZERO (except one on the bay in Destin).

You refuse to deposit and exchange through RCI. You only tout the independents. Well to burst your bubble EVERY SINGLE RESORT that SFX and DAE offers is available for exchange through RCI and/or II. 1000's of resorts are available to deposit and exchange for using RCI that are not available from either through SFX or DAE. If like you I refused to exchange through RCI I would not be able to go Panama City Beach on exchange. What a shame to dislike a company so much that one would limit their options to what independents accept or have in their limited inventory.

In the North Carolina mountains where i enjoy traveling SFX has one total resort. RCI has many. In Gatlinburg SFX has a total of 2 resorts. RCI has many. The examples are endless, and even in hotspots for SFX like Hawaii, RCI has much more inventory at many more locations. You can get a great trade through and independent, but whatever location you trade for, you could probably have made the same exchange through RCI.

You REFUSE to acknowledge that RCI is better for most than the independents. It is better and that is why RCI is so much bigger. I do not use RCI instead of DAE or SFX because I am blind, I use RCI because it consistently gets me the trades I want. If it ever stops working for me I will stop using RCI. If another better mousetrap comes along, I will gladly swap. So far FOR ME RCI is the best mousetrap out there.


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> What we lost in Points Lite was the ability to trade within a range or band, and that is a much bigger loss for members than anything gained.



That depends on which side of the fence you're on.  Trading in bands gave those with crappy blue weeks a chance to trade up a bit and maybe get a decent trade once in a while.  For those, however, that had great trading weeks and traded down to something a little less valuable, you didn't get anything back for giving up more than you got.  

Those inequities no longer exist.  I've got five deposited weeks from the last two years that aren't worth doodly.  I got 10 TPU's each for them.  I'm clearly not happy about that.  Yes, bands would helped a lot.  After combining them, though, I've now got a 50 TPU week that I can go get a couple of great prime time weeks somewhere.  I'm thrilled with that, and I also get an extra two more years to use them.   That's better than bands to me.    

As another thread points out, though, blue weeks and points lite are combining to create some significant problems for the long term health of many seasonal resorts.  That doesn't mean that points lite is a failure or unfair.  It just means we now have a light shined on the true inequity between Red and Blue weeks at seasonal resorts.

For what it's worth, you need to stop attacking Orlando, as there is nothing to attack.  There's really nothing to defend there either.  As I pointed out, almost ALL seasonal East Coast and West Coast resorts do in fact get almost double the deposit points as Orlando during peak season.   Many, if not a majority, on both coasts also get more deposit points than it costs to trade back into the same place.  These are indisputable facts, yet you still have Orlando in your crosshairs for inequities that don't really exist.  

Your constant complaining is starting to sound a lot like that found in the parable of the Prodigal Son.


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> There are some on this board who just cannot seem to understand supply and demand.
> 
> Orlando ranked a lowly 17th on the Trip Advisor poll of places members wanted to go:
> 
> http://www.tripadvisor.com/TCDestinations-g191-United_States.html
> 
> Yet is has light years more timeshare than the 16 destinations that rank above it. What does that tell you about relative supply and demand?


What a ridiculous argument.  Demand isn't calculated by where people WANT to go, but by where people ACTUALLY go.

I WANT to go to the Maldives.  I've never been there, though, and if I'm lucky I'll get to go there once in my lifetime.  I don't personally know anyone who has ever been there.  I've ACTUALLY been to Orlando a dozen times or so and I know tons of people who have been there.  In fact, I often run into people I know (who are vacationing there) on many of my trips.

Based on where tourists ACTUALLY go, Orlando is one of the top three tourist destinations in the US.  (Orlando, Las Vegas and NYC are the top three and each has held the top spot at various times.)


----------



## chriskre

Carolinian said:


> Wrong!  The lawsuit was to try to stop RCI's program of rentals to the general public.  It did not seek ''transparency''.  The limited ''transparency'' in the ''settlement'' (aka sellout) was just one of the meaningless trinkets that the class action lawyers used to justify their cutting and running with their million dollar legal fees earned for doing absolutely nothing to help their clients.
> 
> What we lost in Points Lite was the ability to trade within a range or band, and that is a much bigger loss for members than anything gained.



Wasn't asking RCI how they determined what was rented part of asking them to reveal their formulas and provide transparency?  Maybe we didn't ask them for numbers per se, but obviously showing how they do business required some kind of parameters so Points Lite was born.  

I don't know about you, but you can still trade within a band of numbers and when you choose you can trade up or down.  Why is this so unacceptable to you?  Did you own many doggie weeks in undesireable places with low MF's?  If so I can understand why you are still pining for the old days.  

Sad thing is that lawsuits don't always result in the outcome you seek.  Like it or not, the judges have spoken and the result is transparency which includes TPU's.  How much more rehashing needs to be done?    



tombo said:


> I never said that independents are not an alternative. However for most locations and most deposits the independents are not a viable alternative. .........How can one use SFX if they will not even accept your week for exchange? RCI only gives you 17 points, however they give you something versus NOTHING in the independent company which will not even accept most deposits for trade.
> 
> I think RCI is the best exchange program for the majority of exchangers at the moment.
> 
> What a shame to dislike a company so much that one would limit their options to what independents accept or have in their limited inventory.
> 
> 
> I do not use RCI instead of DAE or SFX because I am blind, I use RCI because it consistently gets me the trades I want. If it ever stops working for me I will stop using RCI. If another better mousetrap comes along, I will gladly swap. So far FOR ME RCI is the best mousetrap out there.



And this is the sad reality that RCI really has no real competition that is viable for the average timeshare owner.  Not all of us own top tier resorts.  I own 2 weeks at no star rating motel converted beachfront FL resorts that no one but RCI wants.  
Since nobody wants it but RCI, why am I going to go begging SFX or II to take my week and just throw me a bone in return.  
When those other companies decide they want my exchange dollars I might give them a try but til then RCI is the one I'm using for most of my external exchanges with my mugwump swampy beach resorts.  

Now my top tier stuff will be used within the mini system.  Why give it to RCI?  I bought it to use it within the system and that's where my great trades will be until I see a need to give it to RCI to get something I really, really want that I can't get internally.  



vckempson said:


> That depends on which side of the fence you're on.  Trading in bands gave those with crappy blue weeks a chance to trade up a bit and maybe get a decent trade once in a while.  For those, however, that had great trading weeks and traded down to something a little less valuable, you didn't get anything back for giving up more than you got.



Even though I owned "red weeks" in FL on the beach, I could NEVER pull some of those top tier trades with the old system.  At least now I can use 2 years of deposits and get that trophy trade if I so choose, which wasn't an option in the past with those bands.  :annoyed: 

I think that's fair.  I give up 2 weeks of my no name resort for 1 week at a top tier resort and that top tier owner can get 2 or maybe even 3 weeks at a no star oceanfront resort if he so chooses.  I'm usually happy staying at plain jane resorts if the location is key but every now and then it's nice to have the option to splurge.


----------



## Carolinian

No, what it does is recognize that there is just no way to get exact numbers exactly right.  Trading within a band or range compensates for that.

Personally, I have not owned a blue week in years, and when I did own one I bought it so I would not have to trade my summer OBX 2BR red week for some of the blue time in Europe I was interested in.  But it is not just blue weeks that are impacted.  A good example is a former active Tugger, now just a nominal Tugger (I know he still at least reads this site sometimes even if he doesn't post here any more) who actively posts at another timeshare site.  He has GC and SC prime red weeks, and in the new system, he has gone back and looked at all 62 of his past trades.  Under the new Points Lite numbers, from his post, he would not have been able to have gotten 35 of them on a one for one basis.  Indeed for one specific area he has been trading into one for one for 15 years, it would now take four of his GC prime red 2BR weeks to get one week on points lite in that area.  

Shoulder season also takes a hit or gets an institutionalized trade up depending on which side one is on.  This is because of overaveraging, a common RCI numbers problem in published numbers, in the spring and fall.  On the high end of those periods, owners are shortchanged, while on the low ends they are awarded inflated values.

Going back to blue weeks, they have long traded one for one for overbuilt areas much of the year.  The reason is that for supply / demand curves, these are like to like trades.  Both are places where there is a glut of inventory.  If the pink weeks that represent most of the calendar in overbuilt areas are given trading power above that of the blue weeks, then it is those pink weeks which in fact are being given the trades up.  Their trading power should be in the same ballpark as weeks of similar supply / demand characteristics, namely the blue weeks.

Orlando is but one example of an overbuilt area.  Another pro-RCI poster has pointed out that overbuilt Spain is also overpointed, for example.




vckempson said:


> That depends on which side of the fence you're on.  Trading in bands gave those with crappy blue weeks a chance to trade up a bit and maybe get a decent trade once in a while.  For those, however, that had great trading weeks and traded down to something a little less valuable, you didn't get anything back for giving up more than you got.
> 
> Those inequities no longer exist.  I've got five deposited weeks from the last two years that aren't worth doodly.  I got 10 TPU's each for them.  I'm clearly not happy about that.  Yes, bands would helped a lot.  After combining them, though, I've now got a 50 TPU week that I can go get a couple of great prime time weeks somewhere.  I'm thrilled with that, and I also get an extra two more years to use them.   That's better than bands to me.
> 
> As another thread points out, though, blue weeks and points lite are combining to create some significant problems for the long term health of many seasonal resorts.  That doesn't mean that points lite is a failure or unfair.  It just means we now have a light shined on the true inequity between Red and Blue weeks at seasonal resorts.
> 
> For what it's worth, you need to stop attacking Orlando, as there is nothing to attack.  There's really nothing to defend there either.  As I pointed out, almost ALL seasonal East Coast and West Coast resorts do in fact get almost double the deposit points as Orlando during peak season.   Many, if not a majority, on both coasts also get more deposit points than it costs to trade back into the same place.  These are indisputable facts, yet you still have Orlando in your crosshairs for inequities that don't really exist.
> 
> Your constant complaining is starting to sound a lot like that found in the parable of the Prodigal Son.


----------



## Carolinian

You do realize that throwing in the Maldives is a red herring don't you?  This is a list of the top vacation destinations in the United States.  Last time I checked the Maldives were not in the United States.

Actually, there is probably much more timeshare in #17 Orlando, by itself, than in all of the other 24 of the top 25 combined  What does that tell you about supply and demand?



MichaelColey said:


> What a ridiculous argument.  Demand isn't calculated by where people WANT to go, but by where people ACTUALLY go.
> 
> I WANT to go to the Maldives.  I've never been there, though, and if I'm lucky I'll get to go there once in my lifetime.  I don't personally know anyone who has ever been there.  I've ACTUALLY been to Orlando a dozen times or so and I know tons of people who have been there.  In fact, I often run into people I know (who are vacationing there) on many of my trips.
> 
> Based on where tourists ACTUALLY go, Orlando is one of the top three tourist destinations in the US.  (Orlando, Las Vegas and NYC are the top three and each has held the top spot at various times.)


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> Orlando is but one example of an overbuilt area.  Another pro-RCI poster has pointed out that overbuilt Spain is also overpointed, for example.



First, let's please get our facts straight... overbuilt yes, overpointed no.

You're right about no way to get a precise number on trade points.  Bands recognize the imprecise nature of attaching values, and it's a little shocking that RCI didn't include that within their points lite system.

Your examples of previously available trades that you can't get now are not, necessarily  indicitive of this problem.  Supply and demand are dynamic and *should* evolve and change each year.  Just because you got a trade for the last 5 years doesn't necessarily mean you should get it next year.


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> You do realize that throwing in the Maldives is a red herring don't you?  This is a list of the top vacation destinations in the United States.  Last time I checked the Maldives were not in the United States.
> 
> Actually, there is probably much more timeshare in #17 Orlando, by itself, than in all of the other 24 of the top 25 combined  What does that tell you about supply and demand?



Let me repeat my previous post.

________________

You do realize that the article doesn't list places most members were going to visit, had visited, or even wanted to visit, right? It's a ranking of the* best *destinations to visit, based on qualitative factors but NOT based on planned trips or actual travelers that go there. 

It's purely a list a great places to go. Using your logic, we could then assume that all Gold Crown resorts have more visitors than No Crown resorts. And before you say, "of course they do". That would mean that a Gold Crown in the Ozarks is a more popular destination and get more visitors than a popular No Crown resort in Southern California or Hawaii.

Come on. In looking at the list, do you really think more people travel to Anchorage or Seattle than Orlando? Now who's trying to twist and pervert the facts?
__________________


----------



## Carolinian

The relief sought in the complaint did not ask that formulas be made public or to ''provide transparency''.  What was sought was to stop the rentals of exchange deposits to the general public, along with some other things like stopping the VIP program for HOA board members and managers.  Whether they would have sought formulas in the discovery phase is academic because the case never got to the discovery phase.  The class action lawyers and RCI cut a deal before even getting into discovery that benefited each of them but threw the plaintiffs under the bus.  They came up with a set of largely meaningless trinkets to give to the plaintiff class, none of which represented the relief sought in the complaint.  One of those trinkets was the short window of transparency.  Many class members objected to the so-called ''settlement'' the self-serving backroom deal put together by and for the lawyers and RCI.  In fact the trial judge commented that he had never seen a class action with so many individuals from the class coming forward to object to a settlement.  The judge never ruled on the merits of the case, only on whether the settlement was valid, and when lawyers on both sides agree it is a hard nut for anyone else to crack to overturn that settlement.  The judge did not create the TPU's or points lite nor the ''transparency''.  He merely ruled that the parties had validly entered into a settlement.  Changing the trading system is, indeed, not mentioned in any way in the sellout settlement.

One of the lead plaintiffs, (real name deleted), used to regularly post on TUG and was at least as skeptical about RCI's new policies as I am (and, no, I do not intend to reveal his user name on TUG), but unfortunately he has not been back since the class action debacle.  I wish he would return to give us some insights and also to answer some comments like yours.

I don't know why you think trading within a range still exists.  To the contraty, the new system locks you in to exact numbers.  If you are seeking a week that takes 35 points lite and you only have 34, too bad!  In the old days, you would probably have gotten the trade with no problem.



chriskre said:


> Wasn't asking RCI how they determined what was rented part of asking them to reveal their formulas and provide transparency?  Maybe we didn't ask them for numbers per se, but obviously showing how they do business required some kind of parameters so Points Lite was born.
> 
> I don't know about you, but you can still trade within a band of numbers and when you choose you can trade up or down.  Why is this so unacceptable to you?  Did you own many doggie weeks in undesireable places with low MF's?  If so I can understand why you are still pining for the old days.
> 
> Sad thing is that lawsuits don't always result in the outcome you seek.  Like it or not, the judges have spoken and the result is transparency which includes TPU's.  How much more rehashing needs to be done?


----------



## Carolinian

People tend to travel to the places they think are great places to visit, not to those they think are arm pits.  That should be self evident.

And as to Gold Crowns, I have specifically argued many times on these boards, including not long ago with Tombo, that location is a much bigger driver of timeshare demand than is award status.  So you are trying to put words in my mouth that are contrary to what I have argued here many times. Indeed one example I have given (sorry if some of you dont like my citing examples from the OBX, but I tend to use areas I am familiar with) many times is that one of the two longtime GC's on the OBX (now downrated to Hospitality) was also the lowest demand resort on the OBX.  Why? Simple - location.  It is not only off the beach, but you have to get in a car and drive to get to the beach.  Yet, in another example of RCI's whacky numbers racket, it gets more points lite than the much higher demand OBX oceanfront resorts.  It is not just between Orlando and England that points lite numbers stand supply and demand on their head, but also between resorts within the OBX.




vckempson said:


> Let me repeat my previous post.
> 
> ________________
> 
> You do realize that the article doesn't list places most members were going to visit, had visited, or even wanted to visit, right? It's a ranking of the* best *destinations to visit, based on qualitative factors but NOT based on planned trips or actual travelers that go there.
> 
> It's purely a list a great places to go. Using your logic, we could then assume that all Gold Crown resorts have more visitors than No Crown resorts. And before you say, "of course they do". That would mean that a Gold Crown in the Ozarks is a more popular destination and get more visitors than a popular No Crown resort in Southern California or Hawaii.
> 
> Come on. In looking at the list, do you really think more people travel to Anchorage or Seattle than Orlando? Now who's trying to twist and pervert the facts?
> __________________


----------



## Carolinian

The example of the 62 past trades I gave was not from my own trades but from a post on another timeshare board from a longtime Tugger who now is not active here but posts frequently on another board.  Yes trading power is, and should be, dynamic, and one might expect 2 or 3 trades not to have the numbers match up any more, but *35 out of 62*?  Also, a trade he has been doing every year for 15 years on a one for one basis now taking *four* of his 2BR prime red GC weeks to get *one* of those?  The same weeks that used to trade one for one?

From the numbers your compatriot cited, Spain does seem to be overpointed, but then again, I did not check his numbers behind him.




vckempson said:


> First, let's please get our facts straight... overbuilt yes, overpointed no.
> 
> You're right about no way to get a precise number on trade points.  Bands recognize the imprecise nature of attaching values, and it's a little shocking that RCI didn't include that within their points lite system.
> 
> Your examples of previously available trades that you can't get now are not, necessarily  indicitive of this problem.  Supply and demand are dynamic and *should* evolve and change each year.  Just because you got a trade for the last 5 years doesn't necessarily mean you should get it next year.


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> Orlando is but one example of an overbuilt area. Another pro-RCI poster has pointed out that overbuilt Spain is also overpointed, for example.


Or maybe timeshare companies build timeshares where people vacation?



Carolinian said:


> Actually, there is probably much more timeshare in #17 Orlando, by itself, than in all of the other 24 of the top 25 combined What does that tell you about supply and demand?


More disinformation.  You continue to refer to Orlando as #17 of 25, but it's really #1 where it counts (*actual* tourism numbers).

And no, there aren't more timeshares in Orlando than in the other 24 markets combined.  Not even close.


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> "Blah, blah, blah, blah.   Conjecture, conjecture.  Blah, blah, blah, blah.  Make up my own facts.  Make up some more facts.  Introduce hearsay with more conjecture and twisted truths."



And you're a lawyer?  It's no wonder disagreement and hostility is rampant here.


----------



## "Roger"

For the record, here is a list as to how many tourism dollars are spent in each state. (The second table - by US citizens only - 2008 statistics - if someone can find more recent statistics they are welcome to post them.)

While the Trip Advisor poll has little to do with how many people actually go to these places (Machu Picchu is getting overused, but it is not by any means the third largest tourist destination in the world), it is interesting to note the number of rental locations for each of the sites listed.  (Taking at look at the Sedona listing, timeshares are not included.) 

(I would comment  further, but seeing how badly an earlier post of mine was completely distorted - even after protest - I think I will decline on this go around.)


----------



## ampaholic

"Roger" said:


> For the record, here is a list as to how many tourism dollars are spent in each state. (The second table - by US citizens only - 2008 statistics - if someone can find more recent statistics they are welcome to post them.)
> 
> While the Trip Advisor poll has little to do with how many people actually go to these places (Machu Picchu is getting overused, but it is not by any means the third largest tourist destination in the world), it is interesting to note the number of rental locations for each of the sites listed.  (Taking at look at the Sedona listing, timeshares are not included.)
> 
> (I would comment  further, but seeing how badly an earlier post of mine was completely distorted - even after protest - I think I will decline on this go around.)



Man, I knew that Texas TS was a good investment, yipee


----------



## tombo

"Roger" said:


> For the record, here is a list as to how many tourism dollars are spent in each state. (The second table - by US citizens only - 2008 statistics - if someone can find more recent statistics they are welcome to post them.)



Some of these are surprising to me. I assumed Florida would be number 1, but it is number 2 behind california. That is not too big of a surprise. However Hawaii coming in at number 25 behind Wisconsin at number 23, Ohio number 12, Minnesota #21, Missouri (branson demand I assume) # 18, michigan #13 (Detroit?), NC # 11, Illinois #6 (Chicago and what else?), and New Jersey # 10 (The Jersey shore?)? 

When discussing dollars spent I would have assumed Hawaii would have beaten all of these mid western states, and especially Michigan and New Jersey, but I would have been wrong. Facts are great and much appreciated. Discussions based on facts can actually reach a correct factual conclusion. Debates based on people opinions and feelings are simply guesses.


----------



## vckempson

"Roger" said:


> For the record, here is a list as to how many tourism dollars are spent in each state. (The second table - by US citizens only - 2008 statistics - if someone can find more recent statistics they are welcome to post them.)



Not sure why TX is ranked so high.  I tried to find something a little more specific to "timeshare destinations".  Here what I found.

http://www.netplaces.com/family-timeshares/buying-in-the-united-states/red-hot-regions.htm 

It's not clear when this article is from, but they referenced 2006 somewhere so the data could be a little outdated.  Anyway, here's the locations with how many visitors go there each year.

Orlando -        50 million annually
Las Vegas -     37 million annually
Myrtle Beach - 13 million annually
Hawaii -           6 million annually
Hilton Head -    2 million annually

Southern CA wasn't mentioned.  Maybe because it's so fragmented.  Anyway, it would appear from this short list that together, Orlando & Las Vegas might have more timeshare visitors than all other destination combined.
_____________________________________________________________

Here's another page on "Understanding the Worldwide Marketplace", with empasis added.

http://www.netplaces.com/family-tim...s/understanding-the-worldwide-marketplace.htm

_Overseas Vacation Patterns

Another factor that will affect the success of your overseas timeshare unit purchase is worldwide vacation patterns. If you are considering buying a timeshare unit that you will return to year after year, this factor will not be as important to you as it will be to a buyer looking at a timeshare unit to be used for exchange. If you are considering buying a unit overseas that you can trade for other vacation destinations around the globe, vacation patterns become a primary concern.

Why? Just as there are hot spots within the United States where you can buy a timeshare to maximize your exchange power, there are also hot spots around the world where you will get more exchange power than if you buy elsewhere. Some of these destinations, and others that seem to be growing into the hot-spot category, include:

• Bahamas
• Dominican Republic
• Mexico
• Netherlands Antilles/Greater Caribbean
• Coastal Spain
• U.S. Virgin Islands
• South Africa

Each of these destinations is growing in general tourism numbers — not just in American tourism numbers — which makes it logical that an increase in timeshare demand would follow. That's what understanding worldwide vacation patterns is all about.

Consider, for instance, the city of Paris, France, which upward of forty million people a year visit during their vacations. That's a staggering five million people more than live in the entire state of California, *making Paris the type of worldwide destination hot spot that Orlando, Florida, is in the United States.* By contrast, you might look into the tourism statistics for Fiji, which boasts lush tropical islands and has always been a dream destination for travelers from around the globe. It might be a place you have always wished you could visit, the kind of place you keep posters of and watch television shows about every chance you get. Still, though, even with its romantic reputation, Fiji draws only about 500,000 tourists a year (not counting cruise-ship passengers). That's a fraction of the number of people booking vacations in Paris on an annual basis.

Thus, when you compare Paris with Fiji, you can see that as a potential timeshare unit owner looking to make exchanges, you are likely going to have more demand for a unit you purchase in the City of Lights than you will for a unit in the exotic South Pacific, even if the timeshare in Fiji is bigger, better-outfitted, and, perhaps, in what you consider to be a more paradisiacal setting.

If you really enjoy visiting Fiji and want to return every year, a timeshare unit there might be the right thing for you to purchase. However, if you're hoping to trade your timeshare vacation time for another unit elsewhere in the world, you will probably have a better chance of getting what you want if you can offer other vacationers a timeshare unit in Paris, where demand is far stronger._


----------



## tombo

ampaholic said:


> Man, I knew that Texas TS was a good investment, yipee



Texas is number 3 in dollars spent. Since it is a fact that texas is number 3 in the US in total tourist dollars spent , then the demand for Texas timeshares has to be higher than anything in the US except for California and Florida. WRONG. The travel to Texas is to Dallas, Houston, and many other places where there aren't any timeshares. So the demand for Texas is high, the demand for the Texas timeshares for the most part is not.

Florida is number 2 in the US. One could assume that you could build timeshares in Florida where everyone wants to travel and you will have demand. If you build them in Orlando area or on a beach yes you should have demand. However if you build timeshares in Florida in the town of Marrianna, Lake belle, Wachula, etc and there will be little demand because few want to vacation there. Just because a state or area is popular does not create demand for timeshares that are not in a prime location. 

Another example is louisianna.  Louisianna is ranked #24 overall. Remove New Orleans from the state tourism figures and the demand and dollars spent in that state would probably be bottom 10. Other than New Orleans, who wants to exchange for louisianna?

Timeshare demand like all other real estate demand is based mainly on location, location, and of course location.


----------



## MichaelColey

vckempson said:


> Not sure why TX is ranked so high.


There are a TON of tourist spots in Texas.  San Antonio, Schlitterbahn, DFW, Houston, Galveston, Austin, NASA, sports, Corpus Christi, Hill Country, lakes (bass fishing), Six Flags, Padre Island, and much more.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> No, what it does is recognize that there is just no way to get exact numbers exactly right.  Trading within a band or range compensates for that.
> 
> Personally, I have not owned a blue week in years, and when I did own one I bought it so I would not have to trade my summer OBX 2BR red week for some of the blue time in Europe I was interested in.  But it is not just blue weeks that are impacted.  A good example is a former active Tugger, now just a nominal Tugger (I know he still at least reads this site sometimes even if he doesn't post here any more) who actively posts at another timeshare site.  He has GC and SC prime red weeks, and in the new system, he has gone back and looked at all 62 of his past trades.  Under the new Points Lite numbers, from his post, he would not have been able to have gotten 35 of them on a one for one basis.  Indeed for one specific area he has been trading into one for one for 15 years, it would now take four of his GC prime red 2BR weeks to get one week on points lite in that area.
> 
> Shoulder season also takes a hit or gets an institutionalized trade up depending on which side one is on.  This is because of overaveraging, a common RCI numbers problem in published numbers, in the spring and fall.  On the high end of those periods, owners are shortchanged, while on the low ends they are awarded inflated values.


On the surface, banding sounds great, but you have to consider there are two sides.  For every blue week that trades up a bit within the band, there is another week at the top of the band that ends up trading down.  If you take 100 average RCI members and look at their trades over the past 10 years, and compare them to the current system, you would find many that would no longer happen - but you would also find many that were a significant trade down.  Those same trades would now produce excess TPU, which could be combined with the existing TPU to bring about some of those trades that are no longer possible.

Also, time of deposit and time of exchange must be taken into consideration.  We can all see what RCI offers members for their deposits, but we can only see the cost of an exchange if it is currently available.  And unless we are looking at the same relative timeframe, we really don't know whether a certain trade would still be possible or not - RCI adjusts the required TPU on a regular basis, just as they did under the old system.


----------



## vckempson

MichaelColey said:


> There are a TON of tourist spots in Texas.  San Antonio, Schlitterbahn, DFW, Houston, Galveston, Austin, NASA, sports, Corpus Christi, Hill Country, lakes (bass fishing), Six Flags, Padre Island, and much more.



Look who's a Texan!  For those of us on the either Coast, we don't think of TX as being filled with vacation destinations.  I spent one summer in Ft Worth when I was 9.  Miserable heat and tarantulas, that's all I remember.  Out of curiosity, do you think most TX tourism is local tourism within the state?  I could see people from the midwest coming down to TX, but not a lot of people traveling from the coasts.


----------



## MichaelColey

Summer can be brutal, but the other three months of the year are nice.  

I'm not sure, but I suspect most of the tourism is local or regional.


----------



## chriskre

Carolinian said:


> I wish he would return to give us some insights and also to answer some comments like yours.
> 
> I don't know why you think trading within a range still exists.  To the contraty, the new system locks you in to exact numbers.  If you are seeking a week that takes 35 points lite and you only have 34, too bad!  In the old days, you would probably have gotten the trade with no problem.



I wish he would too so I could thank him for getting me that resort certificate that I used to stay at Vistana in Orlando.  You know that city nobody wants to visit.  :ignore: 

Alright, so band, schmand, whateverrrr you want to call it.   
If I get 21 TPU's which is what my little converted motel gets me, I can trade in a range of numbers.  Is that a better terminology?  A range of numbers from 1-21.  So yes I can get a 1 for 1 exchange if I choose something in the RANGE of numbers of 1-21.  Now if I decide I want to go above my RANGE formerly known as a band then I gotta ante up another MF and combine fee or forgo that exchange and stay within my range.  Sounds like my life in general.  Having to live within my means or save up for a splurge.  So there,:annoyed:  is that better?  Am I making myself clearer?  So all this crying over not getting a 1 for 1 exchange when in reality I could get a 4 to 1 if I go to that dreaded Orlando where nobody but me wants to go for 5 TPU's each and I'd even have 1 TPU left over.   



MichaelColey said:


> Or maybe timeshare companies build timeshares where people vacation?



You mean I'm not the only one who wants to go see Mickey?   



ampaholic said:


> Man, I knew that Texas TS was a good investment, yipee



I hope you're right cause I own my Wyndham points in San Antonio and I know it's a place that I want to visit over and over again.  Hoping others will too.


----------



## Carolinian

What you don't seem to grasp is that there is no way to get exact numbers exactly right, so a band or range is the only way to get similar weeks to trade for similar weeks fairly.  A trade from an exact number 35 to an exact number 33 may in fact be a trade up instead of a trade down.  In fact when I look at the really screwy numbers between resorts in areas I am familiar with, like BIS-Kitty Hawk vs. the oceanfront resorts on the OBX, I suspect that there are many times that trading to a higher RCI exact number is actually a trade down.  The bands at least even this out, but they are now gone.




Mel said:


> On the surface, banding sounds great, but you have to consider there are two sides.  For every blue week that trades up a bit within the band, there is another week at the top of the band that ends up trading down.  If you take 100 average RCI members and look at their trades over the past 10 years, and compare them to the current system, you would find many that would no longer happen - but you would also find many that were a significant trade down.  Those same trades would now produce excess TPU, which could be combined with the existing TPU to bring about some of those trades that are no longer possible.
> 
> Also, time of deposit and time of exchange must be taken into consideration.  We can all see what RCI offers members for their deposits, but we can only see the cost of an exchange if it is currently available.  And unless we are looking at the same relative timeframe, we really don't know whether a certain trade would still be possible or not - RCI adjusts the required TPU on a regular basis, just as they did under the old system.


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


> Or maybe timeshare companies build timeshares where people vacation?
> 
> More disinformation.  You continue to refer to Orlando as #17 of 25, but it's really #1 where it counts (*actual* tourism numbers).
> 
> And no, there aren't more timeshares in Orlando than in the other 24 markets combined.  Not even close.



There have been discussions on TUG in the past on where people would like to see timeshares built, and part of the answer as to why developers were not building in those locations was simple.  Developers do NOT build based on where people want to vacation, either as owners or as exchangers, but where they can get a tour flow with the right demographics for sales.  Young families with children are one of the best demographics for the developer sales weasels.  They have figured out that Orlando is one of the best places to grab them.  Also, as you yourself pointed out in an earlier post, many people make Disney a once in a lifetime trip for their kids.  That also means a good turnover of first time visitors.  A place like Myrtle Beach, on the other hand, is going to have a much higher percentage of repeat visitors.  When I was growing up, for example, my family spent two weeks there every single summer.  Plus there are good enticement items, since everyone is going to Disney and they can give Disney tickets.  There is even a funnel called I-95, where they can start lining up tours before they even get to Orlando.  Stop at one of those places advertising discount Disney tickets along I-95 and see if it is not a sign up for an Orlando timeshare tour.  Those are the things that matter for a developer.

I'll give you a North Carolina example of a developer looking at tour flow.  I once did a tour at Carriage Manor at Lake Royale for the gift they were giving away and because it was an easy detour on the way home from Raleigh.  The ''resort'' is an apartment building near a medium sized manmade lake in the hinterlands of Franklin County.  All of the others on the tour at the time I was were from the Raleigh area.  For the life of me, I could not think of any reason that anyone would spend a week there for a vacation.  When I mentioned that to the salesman, he said that people bought it for trading and the exchange company would figure out who would want to come there.  I got my gift and left.  Some years later, during lunch at a political party district meeting, I was talking to the Franklin County party chairman, who was a fellow timeshare exchanger and the subject of Carriage Manor came up.  He told me that one of their party activists had worked there in sales for a period after it first opened and had told him that the developer had decided that the Raleigh area was a good target market for timeshare sales due to the number of middle class families there, so he looked for somewhere to build a timeshare close enough to Raleigh that people would actually drive out for a few hours on a weekend to collect a gift and get the tour, and decided this site fit the bill.  I cannot imagine that any timesharer would decide that a smallish manmade lake in the flat farm fields of Franklin County was where their dream vacation lay.  Heck, I would not spend a week of my vacation time there if someone gave it to me free.  Yet a timeshare was built there based solely on the tour flow analysis of a developer.


----------



## tombo

Carolinian said:


> I'll give you a North Carolina example of a developer looking at tour flow.  I once did a tour at Carriage Manor at Lake Royale for the gift they were giving away and because it was an easy detour on the way home from Raleigh.  The ''resort'' is an apartment building near a medium sized manmade lake in the hinterlands of Franklin County.  All of the others on the tour at the time I was were from the Raleigh area.  For the life of me, I could not think of any reason that anyone would spend a week there for a vacation.  When I mentioned that to the salesman, he said that people bought it for trading and the exchange company would figure out who would want to come there.  I got my gift and left.  Some years later, during lunch at a political party district meeting, I was talking to the Franklin County party chairman, who was a fellow timeshare exchanger and the subject of Carriage Manor came up.  He told me that one of their party activists had worked there in sales for a period after it first opened and had told him that the developer had decided that the Raleigh area was a good target market for timeshare sales due to the number of middle class families there, so he looked for somewhere to build a timeshare close enough to Raleigh that people would actually drive out for a few hours on a weekend to collect a gift and get the tour, and decided this site fit the bill.  I cannot imagine that any timesharer would decide that a smallish manmade lake in the flat farm fields of Franklin County was where their dream vacation lay.  Heck, I would not spend a week of my vacation time there if someone gave it to me free.  Yet a timeshare was built there based solely on the tour flow analysis of a developer.



Grasping at straws here. Tour flow is where LARGE NUMBERS of people vacation. Orlando is where people vacation in larger numbers than anywhere in the US but possibly New york and Vegas. 

As far as Orlando being a one time vacation, I don't have any friends for who that is the case. You go at least once when the kids are young enough to want to go, but too young to ride everything. Then the obligatory trip back when the youngest kid(s) are big enough to ride everything. Then the final trip back because the kids say they really don't remember it well because they were too young, so a final hoorah when they are teenagers. Most people I know made at least 3 trips. Many love the Mouse so much that it is a trip they make several times a year long after tey are empty nest. To characterize Orlando as a once in a lifetime trip has to be from the perspective of someone who never had children. I have personally been to Orlando at LEAST 10 times, and I am not a fan of the mouse.

As far as your example of the North Carolina developer deciding that the middle of nowhere would be a great place to build a timeshare because of the local demographics and " TOUR FLOW", how did that work out for him? Is he a giant timeshare mogul now? Does he have many locations like Wyndham? Are there 1000's of units built at this resort? Are there competitor's timeshare complexes all around this one wanting to emulate his success and benefit from the ever increasing "Tour Flow" just like has happened and is continuing to happen in Orlando? Nope. Just this one low rated small complex that was a failure as is evident from no continued building and no timeshres being built close by. Building a resort to sell based on "tour flow" rather than in a high demand vaction destination was a failure, so no other developer's followed suit.

Another great idea was in Alabama. A developer built 2 timeshre complexes (Dogwood hills at Alpine Bay and East pines at Alpine Bay) on a beautiful huge lake called Lake Logan Martin. The resorts are on an 18 hole Robert Trent jones golf Course. It is located less than 1 hour from birmingham and all of those families with high incomes, and less than 2 hours from Atlanta on the interstate funnel that is I-20. They have everything you need. The "tour flow" was here too. Yet somehow just like in your example they failed. No expansions. No continued construction and sales. No competitors building timeshares all around them Just a great idea a guy had that failed. Once again "TOUR FLOW" was not the main factor, demand for the VACATION DESTINATION was, and this location didn't have enough demand.

Orlando is one of the top 3 destinations in the US every year with regards to number of tourists. This is a free enterprise country. People build timeshares  where they can successfully sell them or they go BROKE. In your North Carolina example one guy tried to do something outside of the box and failed. In the Alabama resorts I cited, same thing, it wasn't financially successfull. So they built a timeshare for TOUR FLOWS rather than in a huge tourist vacation destination, they lost money, and no other developers followed suit because the locations were not successful.

On the other hand in Orlando they built many resorts, and kept building them, and people kept buying them. So they built more and people bought more. In fact there are still timeshare resorts in active sales and building modes in Orlando and almost nowhere else in the world. Why are they in Orlando? Because they make money building timeshares in Orlando. Not in Vegas, not in OBX, not in Europe, but there is still a market of buyers wanting to own in Orlando. It is called demand and location, location, location. Location and demand drives sales, not "Tour Flows"..


----------



## vckempson

tombo said:


> Grasping at straws here. Tour flow is where LARGE NUMBERS of people vacation. Orlando is where people vacation in larger numbers than anywhere in the US but possibly New york and Vegas.



Yep. Over 50 million a year to Orlando, same for NY and 35 million a year to Vegas.


----------



## Texasbelle

It looks like RCI gives more TPU for a deposit into their weeks system than is required to trade into the same week, same place.  The only reason I see for this is that they want deposits and that they want the fees involved in trades.  If you have only one timeshare [tuggers with only one timeshare???], you could spacebank it and have 2 or more vacations, sometimes into the same resort.  Weird, but cost effective for RCI.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*I Resemble That Remark.*




tombo said:


> I have personally been to Orlando at LEAST 10 times, and I am not a fan of the mouse.


Same here. 

When we're there with kids, we go to the parks & have a nice time. 

When it's The Chief Of Staff & I by ourselves, we skip all the parks & still have a nice time. 

We've been to Las Vegas 3 times, Branson MO once, Gatlinburg TN once, Mulberry FL once, Cape Canaveral FL once, St. Augustine FL once, & Orlando FL more times than I can remember, mostly without kids. 

You can say that Orlando became a timeshare hub because of WDW, but keep in mind that Uncle Walt picked Orange County & Osceola County as the WDW site because of its strategic location, reasonably close to both coasts but far enough inland for less hurricane exposure, & (more important) close to the junction of I-4 & the Florida Turnpike.  Read all about it in an informative book titled _Married To The Mouse_.

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


----------



## Carolinian

vckempson said:


> And you're a lawyer?  It's no wonder disagreement and hostility is rampant here.



I am not sure how you put up an alleged quote supposedly from a post of mine that is purely ficticious and was above the post of yours I quote, but it is extremely dishonest on your part.  I thought it was bad to be quoted out of context, as happens sometime, but I have never had a totally made up ''quote'' posted on this on any other discussion board until you did it.  That is a new low for TUG.  Congratulations!


----------



## Carolinian

You don't seem to understand the concept of trading within a band, so let me explain it to you.

Madge from RCI acknowledged that the old Weeks system operated by trading within bands or ranges. A band or range consisted of a group of trading powers, not a single number, and was used for one for one trades.  If the week you wanted was within that band or a lower band, you could trade for it. If it was in a higher band you could not.

As a result of TUG trade tests, it was established that there were, if memory serves, 6 bands or ranges.  At a later time, this apparently was expanded somewhat to a larger number of bands.  With that number of bands, they were broad enough to make up for the fact that it is just not possible to get exact numbers exactly right.

Someone in discussing the coming of Points Lite, described it as going to 60 bands.  To use that analogy, if your new number is 35, your old band would have covered say 30 to 40, so you could have traded one for one up to the top of the band, at 40.  Under the new system, you cannot make that trade on a one for one basis.  You are forced to either combine weeks or forego the trade (or do the smart thing and use an independent exchange company).

Oh and as to thanking Allen for your certificate, I doubt he would appreciate that.  The sellout lawyers who conjured up that sellout settlement threw the lead plaintiffs under the bus just like they did their class member clients.  He was in it for reform, not trinkets.




chriskre said:


> Alright, so band, schmand, whateverrrr you want to call it.
> If I get 21 TPU's which is what my little converted motel gets me, I can trade in a range of numbers.  Is that a better terminology?  A range of numbers from 1-21.  So yes I can get a 1 for 1 exchange if I choose something in the RANGE of numbers of 1-21.  Now if I decide I want to go above my RANGE formerly known as a band then I gotta ante up another MF and combine fee or forgo that exchange and stay within my range.  Sounds like my life in general.  Having to live within my means or save up for a splurge.  So there,:annoyed:  is that better?  Am I making myself clearer?  So all this crying over not getting a 1 for 1 exchange when in reality I could get a 4 to 1 if I go to that dreaded Orlando where nobody but me wants to go for 5 TPU's each and I'd even have 1 TPU left over.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean I'm not the only one who wants to go see Mickey?
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you're right cause I own my Wyndham points in San Antonio and I know it's a place that I want to visit over and over again.  Hoping others will too.


----------



## Carolinian

Well, just to take some of the figures from your article and apply them to the principles of supply and demand:
Paris - 40 million visitors a year
Orlando - 50 million visitors a year
Orlando probably has thousands of timeshare interval for every one that Paris has, so which one is going to have the MUCH better supply / demand curve?

Also your article makes no sense when it starts talking about good timeshare demand giving good trading value in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and coastal Spain.  Like Orlando, each of these places is overbuilt in timeshare and therefore extremely easy to trade into.  The fact that many people do want to go there is overwhelmed by the fact that they just have too much supply for even that demand.




vckempson said:


> Not sure why TX is ranked so high.  I tried to find something a little more specific to "timeshare destinations".  Here what I found.
> 
> http://www.netplaces.com/family-timeshares/buying-in-the-united-states/red-hot-regions.htm
> 
> It's not clear when this article is from, but they referenced 2006 somewhere so the data could be a little outdated.  Anyway, here's the locations with how many visitors go there each year.
> 
> Orlando -        50 million annually
> Las Vegas -     37 million annually
> Myrtle Beach - 13 million annually
> Hawaii -           6 million annually
> Hilton Head -    2 million annually
> 
> Southern CA wasn't mentioned.  Maybe because it's so fragmented.  Anyway, it would appear from this short list that together, Orlando & Las Vegas might have more timeshare visitors than all other destination combined.
> _____________________________________________________________
> 
> Here's another page on "Understanding the Worldwide Marketplace", with empasis added.
> 
> http://www.netplaces.com/family-tim...s/understanding-the-worldwide-marketplace.htm
> 
> _Overseas Vacation Patterns
> 
> Another factor that will affect the success of your overseas timeshare unit purchase is worldwide vacation patterns. If you are considering buying a timeshare unit that you will return to year after year, this factor will not be as important to you as it will be to a buyer looking at a timeshare unit to be used for exchange. If you are considering buying a unit overseas that you can trade for other vacation destinations around the globe, vacation patterns become a primary concern.
> 
> Why? Just as there are hot spots within the United States where you can buy a timeshare to maximize your exchange power, there are also hot spots around the world where you will get more exchange power than if you buy elsewhere. Some of these destinations, and others that seem to be growing into the hot-spot category, include:
> 
> • Bahamas
> • Dominican Republic
> • Mexico
> • Netherlands Antilles/Greater Caribbean
> • Coastal Spain
> • U.S. Virgin Islands
> • South Africa
> 
> Each of these destinations is growing in general tourism numbers — not just in American tourism numbers — which makes it logical that an increase in timeshare demand would follow. That's what understanding worldwide vacation patterns is all about.
> 
> Consider, for instance, the city of Paris, France, which upward of forty million people a year visit during their vacations. That's a staggering five million people more than live in the entire state of California, *making Paris the type of worldwide destination hot spot that Orlando, Florida, is in the United States.* By contrast, you might look into the tourism statistics for Fiji, which boasts lush tropical islands and has always been a dream destination for travelers from around the globe. It might be a place you have always wished you could visit, the kind of place you keep posters of and watch television shows about every chance you get. Still, though, even with its romantic reputation, Fiji draws only about 500,000 tourists a year (not counting cruise-ship passengers). That's a fraction of the number of people booking vacations in Paris on an annual basis.
> 
> Thus, when you compare Paris with Fiji, you can see that as a potential timeshare unit owner looking to make exchanges, you are likely going to have more demand for a unit you purchase in the City of Lights than you will for a unit in the exotic South Pacific, even if the timeshare in Fiji is bigger, better-outfitted, and, perhaps, in what you consider to be a more paradisiacal setting.
> 
> If you really enjoy visiting Fiji and want to return every year, a timeshare unit there might be the right thing for you to purchase. However, if you're hoping to trade your timeshare vacation time for another unit elsewhere in the world, you will probably have a better chance of getting what you want if you can offer other vacationers a timeshare unit in Paris, where demand is far stronger._


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> Well, just to take some of the figures from your article and apply them to the principles of supply and demand:
> Paris - 40 million visitors a year
> Orlando - 50 million visitors a year
> Orlando probably has thousands of timeshare interval for every one that Paris has, so which one is going to have the MUCH better supply / demand curve?



Paris should.  That's why it's a more expensive trade and gets 2x the TPU's on deposit.  So what's your point?


----------



## chriskre

Carolinian said:


> You don't seem to understand the concept of trading within a band, so let me explain it to you.
> 
> Madge from RCI acknowledged that the old Weeks system operated by trading within bands or ranges. A band or range consisted of a group of trading powers, not a single number, and was used for one for one trades.  If the week you wanted was within that band or a lower band, you could trade for it. If it was in a higher band you could not.
> 
> As a result of TUG trade tests, it was established that there were, if memory serves, 6 bands or ranges.  At a later time, this apparently was expanded somewhat to a larger number of bands.  With that number of bands, they were broad enough to make up for the fact that it is just not possible to get exact numbers exactly right.
> 
> Someone in discussing the coming of Points Lite, described it as going to 60 bands.  To use that analogy, if your new number is 35, your old band would have covered say 30 to 40, so you could have traded one for one up to the top of the band, at 40.  Under the new system, you cannot make that trade on a one for one basis.  You are forced to either combine weeks or forego the trade (or do the smart thing and use an independent exchange company).



Okay so now we've got 60 bands.  So for my 21 TPU's I can trade from bands 1 all the way thru to band 21.  Right?  So that's 21 different bands that are available to me as opposed to say the old system of 1 band of 20-30.  Then if I decide I want to trade in bands 22-42 I've gotta pay $99 and combine.  So now instead of being under the old trading within a band of say 20-30 as the good old days   I  can now trade in 42 bands.  And can get stuff I could have never touched no matter how I tried.  

Please tell me how that is a bad thing?  It's only bad for the mugwump swamp owners who want the system to stay unfair so they can vacation all winter in some warm nice place for a song being subsidized by the unsavvy owners who haven't yet learned how to game the system.  

It may not be a perfect system but I know for many it's better than it was.  I guess we're going to have to just agree to disagree cause :deadhorse: 

I still like you Carolinian.


----------



## tedk

Wouldn't  it be good to come to this board and read something constructive instead of this slagging off between the same protagonist Carolinian, Tombo, Vckempson & Chriskre. Are the last three named the same person, as i am beginning to think they are.


----------



## vckempson

tedk said:


> Wouldn't  it be good to come to this board and read something constructive instead of this slagging off between the same protagonist Carolinian, Tombo, Vckempson & Chriskre. Are the last three named the same person, as i am beginning to think they are.



Ouch!  I guess it's time to play nice for a while.


----------



## chriskre

tedk said:


> Wouldn't  it be good to come to this board and read something constructive instead of this slagging off between the same protagonist Carolinian, Tombo, Vckempson & Chriskre. Are the last three named the same person, as i am beginning to think they are.



No I am not a clone of the others.
I'm a real person who happens to like Orlando in case you couldn't tell.   
Sorry you don't get our American humor.
We're just having fun.


----------



## tombo

tedk said:


> Wouldn't  it be good to come to this board and read something constructive instead of this slagging off between the same protagonist Carolinian, Tombo, Vckempson & Chriskre. Are the last three named the same person, as i am beginning to think they are.



If something constructive is stated about RCI or the new weeks program, if a question is asked that one can answer regarding ways to benefit using the RCI system, if someone shows any positive thing about RCI, then Carolinian will appear and spout anti-RCI rhetoric repeatedly. We do not post negatives about the mini's and/or independents when those threads pop up, but he refuses to let it go on this thread or any other thread. 

The title of this thread is RCI weeks value of deposit. Carolinian has not and according to him will not ever deposit a week with RCI under the new program, yet he must post on this thread constantly even though he never will actually exchange a week. It is like me posting endlessly about how I hate morning sickness on a pro pregnancy thread even though I am male and will never be pregnant.

The choices are to let Carlolinian say half truths and mis-statements about the new program and RCI in general and let them stand unchallenged as though true, or someone can refute it. If nothing is said to refute him any guest, newbie, or rare reader will assume that RCI sucks,that it is not worth joining, that the new Weeks TPU values are cheating all members, that it cheats Europe, that it favors orlando, etc, etc, etc. If no one said anything one could assume from reading these threads that RCI sucks and the independents are the only way to exchange because Carolinian says so and no one on TUG disagreed. What a disservice to people trying to find out about the new program. 

The facts are that for SOME TUGGERS the independents can work well for SOME trades using SOME deposits, but many deposits are unacceptable from the independents list, and many locations are unavailable. The inventory is much more limited in the independents. For MOST TUGGERS RCI will work much better for exchanging than the independents. If you do not state this, many could quit RCI, join SFX, and find out that the weeks they own are not resorts that SFX accepts. If no one lets people know to go to DAE and inspect what is available to exchange for and compare it to the weeks available in RCI, then Carolinian will have all who read his posts convinced that quitting RCI si what they should do.

Most of us posting here have found ways to make the new RCI system work well for us, and in fact work much better than the old system. When we post about successes Carolinian disputes them, calls them a fluke, says that just a few owners with orlando weeks come out ahead, claims the masses of members lose in this new system, we lost banding (who cares?), that we have no transparency of how RCI decides the values to assign and charge for exchanges (once again who care, it is what it is), etc, etc, etc. Several of us point out the facts so that people can see both sides, not just the view Carolinian supports. 

Dear Ted,

I will be glad to pass the baton to you. I recently put Carolinian on ignore and was asked by several on the thread and off to not do that. They said that whether we agree or not that no one should be blocked, so I removed the ignore. I immediatelly read another nice post from Carolinian that I felt obligated to refute since it was full of spin, misinformation, and also because  I was named in the post. If I had kept him on ignore, I would never have known, never responded, and his post would remain there as though it is the gospel.

Of course I don't have to provide balance, and neither does Chriskre or VKempson, or Michael Coley, et al. We can all quit right now. Even if we all quit debating the posts made by Carolinian, we all know that Carolinian will not stop posting anti RCI comments everytime someone says something positive about RCI or the new program. 
So that will leave two choices. 
1. Carolinian can post his anti RCI views with nobody willing to post that the new RCI weeks program can be good if you learn how to work it. The thread will become a hotbed of misinformation and a disservice to TUGGERS and guests. Any positive about RCI will be belittled and ridiculed by Carolinian until none post anything positive for fear of enduring Carolinians wrath and ridicule.
OR,
2. YOU  TED can take over for us. Please feel free to try and civilly discuss the new RCI program and it's advantages with Carolinian. Someone needs to do it and I vote for Ted to be the chosen one.

Number 2 is the winner. We all deserve a good rest. Go get em Ted.

Ted, this is your mission if you decide to accept it. Show on these threads that Carolinians rants are based on feelings and not facts. Make sure to defend other posters from the ruthless attacks and barbs that they will receive from Carolinian if they post anything positive about RCI. If you get weak, if you quit when you are verbally assaulted, and if you fail in your mission to keep balance on this thread, TUG will disavow any knowledge of you or your mission. Please accept this impossible mission because someone has to do it or positive discussion about RCI will cease on TUG. Good luck if you decide to accept this mission!


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Good Morning, Mr. Phelps.*




tombo said:


> Ted, this is your mission if you decide to accept it. Show on these threads that Carolinians rants are based on feelings and not facts. Make sure to defend other posters from the ruthless attacks and barbs that they will receive from Carolinian if they post anything positive about RCI. If you get weak, if you quit when you are verbally assaulted, and if you fail in your mission to keep balance on this thread, TUG will disavow any knowledge of you or your mission. Please accept this impossible mission because someone has to do it or positive discussion about RCI will cease on TUG. Good luck if you decide to accept this mission!


This message will self-destruct in 6 seconds. 

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


----------



## Joe M.

Carolinian said:


> You don't seem to understand the concept of trading within a band, so let me explain it to you.



I think the people posting here understand trading within a band. In some cases the old system as you describe it will result in better trades being available. However, in other cases the new Trade Power factor system along with the residual deposit credits for trades into lower valued weeks will result in better trades.

I will construct two examples. The first one will show how the old trade band system per your description will result in better trade options. The second will show the contrary. 

Let the six bands be 1-10,11-20,21-30,31-40,41-50,51-60.

I will use three deposits for the example. I have five right now and most TUG members likely have multiple deposits. Let the deposit values be 15,25, and 35.

Any week can trade within its band or into a lower band.

The desired weeks for exchange have values of 12, 22, and 39.

*Under the old band system:*

All three weeks can be taken in straight exchanges.
deposit 15 takes exchange 12
deposit 25 takes exchange 22
deposit 35 takes exchange 39

*Under the new system:*

deposit 15 takes exchange 12 with deposit credit 3
deposit 25 takes exchange 22 with deposit credit 3
credits combined for $99 fee; 35+3+3=41
combined deposit 41 takes exchange 39 with deposit credit 2

So there is an example where the old system *was* better. It yielded the same trades for $99 less. We understand what you are saying. But look at a slightly different set of numbers.

Deposits are again 15,25, and 35.
The desired weeks for exchange have values of 12,22 and 41.

*Under the old system:*

deposit 15 takes exchange 12
deposit 25 takes exchange 22
deposit 35 cannot take exchange 41 as it is in a higher band

*Under the new system:*

deposit 15 takes exchange 12 with deposit credit 3
deposit 25 takes exchange 22 with deposit credit 3
credits combined for $99 fee; 35+3+3=41
combined deposit 41 takes exchange 41

In this example the new system offered a new option to get the final trade although it did cost an additional $99. If it is felt that the trade is not worth the $99 fee then the combine can be skipped which leaves the same results as under the old system in this case.

Everyone posting here can come up with multiple examples showing one system or the other is better. My conclusion is that in some cases the old system was better and in some cases the new system is better. I will not agree with anyone who says that one system is consistently better than the other.


----------



## tombo

Joe M. said:


> Everyone posting here can come up with multiple examples showing one system or the other is better. My conclusion is that in some cases the old system was better and in some cases the new system is better. I will not agree with anyone who says that one system is consistently better than the other.



Based purelly on trading power and ranges I agree. Some can do better with their weeks in the new system, some could do better with their weeks under the old system.

When you look at the OVERALL programs, the new program is much better in many ways.

In the old system if you owned multiple weeks that traded in a lower "band" that would not get your desired hard to get exchange like Manhattan Club, then you could not trade for the Manhattan Club. If you owned 5 or 6 weeks, none of which would trade in the band required for The Manhattan Club, St Johns, etc, etc, then you could not trade for those locations no matter what you did. Under the new program you can for a $99 fee combine 2 or more weeks and create a deposit that can trade for "bands" (exchanges) that you could not exchange for before. This is much better. 

In the old system if you traded a week you owned that was at the upper limit of a band for a week that was at the lower limit of that band, or even in a lower band, you exchanged DOWN for a week on a one for one basis. No compensation from RCI for exchanging downward. In the new system if you exchange a week with a TPU value of 30 for a week costing 15, rather than a one for one downward exchange with no compensation from RCI like under the old system, under the new system you get the exchange plus you get to keep 15 TPU'sin your account. Much better than the old system.

If you pay to combine weeks, you extend the expiration dates to 2 years from the date you combine. In the old system this wasn't possible. Now for a $99 fee you can assure yourself that none of your weeks or their TPU points will ever expire.

Under the new system you can deposit a high value week and get 2, 3, 4, or even 5 weeks for one deposit depending on how much your deposit was worth and how much your exchanges cost. In the past it was one for one, period. Now you have the ability to get more than one exchange for one deposit. Much better under the new program.

Under the old system you deposited your week and never knew what it could see or exchange for until you had deposited it. Want Manhattan Club? Under the old program you deposited your best week and hoped. Still didn't see Manhattan Club? PM other TUGERS and see if they can see any with their deposit. If they can and you can't, your deposit wasn't strong enough. Deposit another tiger week and hope. Now using the new system before you deposit you can see all of RCI's inventory and what it costs. You know how much RCI will gve you for your week before you deposit it. You know if your week will have enough PU's to trade for the week you want before you deposit it. You also know if you are short a few TPU's which week you need to deposit and combine to exchange for your desired week. You now know what the weeks you own are worth before you deposit them, and you know what the week(s) you are looking for will cost you. This is MUCH better than the old system. 

If you simply look at who does better on specific exchanges under the old system and the new system, some were better before, and some are better now. If you look at the new program versus the old system in it's totallity, the new system is MUCH BETTER.


----------



## timeos2

tombo said:


> If you simply look at who does better on specific exchanges under the old system and the new system, some were better before, and some are better now. If you look at the new program versus the old system in it's totallity, the new system is MUCH BETTER.



Agreed 100%. The "new" system informs members of what bhey have and what it takes to get what they want. It allows carry overs, etc as you point out. The predicted mass exodus of owners that discovered what they thought was a great value had virtually no value didn't happen as they were also given options to use the time - just in a different way.  

Overall the change seems to be a real winner for RCI & it's members.  A far cry from the doom and gloom that was and still is being claimed by those that were able to milk the old way to their benefit while the vast majority got little. Now the majority have a system they can us and the minority have to find a new way.  MUCH better. Yet another unintended result of the misconceived class action lawsuit that blew up in the members faces (as long predicted by many here).  Ultimately something was salvaged, a new system put in place and now it' up and running well.  Enjoy it before it gets changed yet again or another ill-conceived class action screws things up.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Alternative To RCI Improvements.*




timeos2 said:


> Overall the change seems to be a real winner for RCI & it's members.  A far cry from the doom and gloom that was and still is being claimed by those that were able to milk the old way to their benefit while the vast majority got little.


Those out there who prefer the gloom & the doom -- _and you know who you are_ -- can abandon RCI forthwith & go sign up with I-I & see how you like it.  

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


----------



## MichaelColey

timeos2 said:


> Overall the change seems to be a real winner for RCI & it's members.


I agree. I think we were all concerned with how things would shake out. We've all seen "enhancements" rolled out with other programs we belong in, and they're seldom improvements. This one seems like a true win-win to me.  I've probably benefited more than most, but I have to believe that it's been more positive than negative for most. I'd love to see a poll here on TUG.


----------



## lolibeachgirl

Haven't been on in awhile (basically since the crap hit the fan with RCI's new system) but I see things are still as lively as then. 

I am a tugger who only owns one timeshare.  My ex loves going to Myrtle Beach where we own.  I liked it when we were together, but now my desire to go there is gone.  I only want to exchange to Hawaii where I love now that we're split.  Tried to sell my half out to the ex right after the divorce.....then almost bought a unit in Hawaii through Wyndham(close call there).  Thought about buying resale through Ebay and even asked some tuggers questions about their timeshares for sale, but in the end decided to keep exchanging what I have and alternating years with the ex. My MF of $600 EOY gets me a week each year if I split the lockout or I can combine for a great trade if I wish.  The good thing now is I KNOW the approximate values needed for either in the place I want to go.

Found out a lot of great info here on TUG, things I never knew (that my ownership of red in MB wasn't all of the year except the prime summer months-meaning I didn't own New Year's, Thanksgiving or Christmas like I thought I did for 10 years).  Found out I can request a specific week of deposit-which is really important now that I can compare how much difference those weeks are worth in TPV.  Found out that in my specific situation I couldn't have taken advantage of Wyndham perk that would have been my reason for buying (points for a previously owned TS)-that info saved me a LOT of money!!! 

Thanks to the knowledge shared from tuggers, I asked for and was given Easter week 2012 for both a 1BR loft and a hotel unit.  When the deposits showed up in my account, they were listed as 19 and 14 (exactly as I had expected), with a combined total of 33...which let me know I could get pretty good trades at Hawaii resorts I like.  Big relief in that knowledge...no more nail biting, hoping I didn't miss their phone call when I was next on the list, IF they would call, IF I could get something decent in Hawaii, if passing on a crappy one would mean I might be giving up my chance to get there at all. 

Have started planning for an exchange to Hawaii this Oct. and was thrilled to see my deposits are now listed as 25 and 19 for a total of 44!  As more people looked ahead to spring break 2012 and realized what week that was, demand increased and I was credited accordingly.  Surprised but happy about that.:whoopie: 

My point is that this website was created and exists IMHO to help fellow timeshare owners (or those contemplating taking the plunge).  Some people's arguements don't really seem to be helping anyone in any way. We all have different situations, but the old system is gone, and we are all trying to learn together how to get the new system to work best for our situation.  I found out important info by stating my situation, asking lots of questions, and luckily people with knowledge of how things work were kind enough to post their knowledge. 

I usually come to TUG when I start planning a trip to learn about a specific resort, stayed for the RCI change and to get info on the potential purchase I was thinking about after the trip.  The thing is, I may have stayed on the boards after that had I not gotten so frustrated about all the back and forth.  It was so hard to find useful information with all the "stuff" taking up pages and pages of threads.   "My resort area is great/your resort area sucks/mine deserves more value/yours deserves less value/" and stating various "reasons" why any of the above is true....and saying just how much you hate an exchange company and/or their change in policy....does it really help anyone?   Expressing your concerns over the change and disappointment when it hit, and as we found out about how the changes affected our deposits and trades is one thing but :deadhorse: 

I just wanted to say thanks to all the tuggers who helped me with constructive advice, or whose experiences helped me avoid making a timesharing mistake.  I also want to say thanks to the people who created and run TUG, it is much appreciated...and I always recommend TUG to friends who ask even one question about timesharing. 

*TUG is not my first experience in message boards.  I got to know many great people on Hawaii.com's boards when I first started researching Hawaii years ago.  That led to meeting about 20 people who share my love of Hawaii-either through going to Hawaiian concerts here on the East Coast, or planning trips to Hawaii at the same time to meet and hang out.  Some became very good friends...and several of us have vacationed at each other's homes across the country and even Australia because we became close through years of sharing info on the boards.  So great things happen when people who have never met each other reach out to help someone else on these forums.  I have had experiences I never would have had without that message board.  I notice many tuggers reach out to meet if they are vacationing at the same place at the same time, what a great thing!  It would be a shame if negativity would drive people away from this site and potentially rob them of friendships and experiences they might not have otherwise


----------



## Carolinian

Knowledge of using other systems is important with the disenhancements imposed by RCI.

A good example comes from another timeshare board.  A member was looking to trade for two weeks on Kauai, but with Points Lite, it took more than one of her red weeks now to get one Kauai week, so she was asking about places to rent for the second week.  Other members pointed out that she could still trade one for one into Kauai with independent exchange companies which would still get her the two weeks of timeshare exchanges she was looking for, and pointed out two specific independents which had good inventory in Kauai. 

Problem created by Points Lite solved thanks to independent exchange companies! 




lolibeachgirl said:


> Haven't been on in awhile (basically since the crap hit the fan with RCI's new system) but I see things are still as lively as then.
> 
> I am a tugger who only owns one timeshare.  My ex loves going to Myrtle Beach where we own.  I liked it when we were together, but now my desire to go there is gone.  I only want to exchange to Hawaii where I love now that we're split.  Tried to sell my half out to the ex right after the divorce.....then almost bought a unit in Hawaii through Wyndham(close call there).  Thought about buying resale through Ebay and even asked some tuggers questions about their timeshares for sale, but in the end decided to keep exchanging what I have and alternating years with the ex. My MF of $600 EOY gets me a week each year if I split the lockout or I can combine for a great trade if I wish.  The good thing now is I KNOW the approximate values needed for either in the place I want to go.
> 
> Found out a lot of great info here on TUG, things I never knew (that my ownership of red in MB wasn't all of the year except the prime summer months-meaning I didn't own New Year's, Thanksgiving or Christmas like I thought I did for 10 years).  Found out I can request a specific week of deposit-which is really important now that I can compare how much difference those weeks are worth in TPV.  Found out that in my specific situation I couldn't have taken advantage of Wyndham perk that would have been my reason for buying (points for a previously owned TS)-that info saved me a LOT of money!!!
> 
> Thanks to the knowledge shared from tuggers, I asked for and was given Easter week 2012 for both a 1BR loft and a hotel unit.  When the deposits showed up in my account, they were listed as 19 and 14 (exactly as I had expected), with a combined total of 33...which let me know I could get pretty good trades at Hawaii resorts I like.  Big relief in that knowledge...no more nail biting, hoping I didn't miss their phone call when I was next on the list, IF they would call, IF I could get something decent in Hawaii, if passing on a crappy one would mean I might be giving up my chance to get there at all.
> 
> Have started planning for an exchange to Hawaii this Oct. and was thrilled to see my deposits are now listed as 25 and 19 for a total of 44!  As more people looked ahead to spring break 2012 and realized what week that was, demand increased and I was credited accordingly.  Surprised but happy about that.:whoopie:
> 
> My point is that this website was created and exists IMHO to help fellow timeshare owners (or those contemplating taking the plunge).  Some people's arguements don't really seem to be helping anyone in any way. We all have different situations, but the old system is gone, and we are all trying to learn together how to get the new system to work best for our situation.  I found out important info by stating my situation, asking lots of questions, and luckily people with knowledge of how things work were kind enough to post their knowledge.
> 
> I usually come to TUG when I start planning a trip to learn about a specific resort, stayed for the RCI change and to get info on the potential purchase I was thinking about after the trip.  The thing is, I may have stayed on the boards after that had I not gotten so frustrated about all the back and forth.  It was so hard to find useful information with all the "stuff" taking up pages and pages of threads.   "My resort area is great/your resort area sucks/mine deserves more value/yours deserves less value/" and stating various "reasons" why any of the above is true....and saying just how much you hate an exchange company and/or their change in policy....does it really help anyone?   Expressing your concerns over the change and disappointment when it hit, and as we found out about how the changes affected our deposits and trades is one thing but :deadhorse:
> 
> I just wanted to say thanks to all the tuggers who helped me with constructive advice, or whose experiences helped me avoid making a timesharing mistake.  I also want to say thanks to the people who created and run TUG, it is much appreciated...and I always recommend TUG to friends who ask even one question about timesharing.
> 
> *TUG is not my first experience in message boards.  I got to know many great people on Hawaii.com's boards when I first started researching Hawaii years ago.  That led to meeting about 20 people who share my love of Hawaii-either through going to Hawaiian concerts here on the East Coast, or planning trips to Hawaii at the same time to meet and hang out.  Some became very good friends...and several of us have vacationed at each other's homes across the country and even Australia because we became close through years of sharing info on the boards.  So great things happen when people who have never met each other reach out to help someone else on these forums.  I have had experiences I never would have had without that message board.  I notice many tuggers reach out to meet if they are vacationing at the same place at the same time, what a great thing!  It would be a shame if negativity would drive people away from this site and potentially rob them of friendships and experiences they might not have otherwise


----------



## sandkastle4966

Carolinian said:


> Knowledge of using other systems is important with the disenhancements imposed by RCI.
> 
> A good example comes from another timeshare board.  A member was looking to trade for two weeks on Kauai, but with Points Lite, it took more than one of her red weeks now to get one Kauai week, so she was asking about places to rent for the second week.  Other members pointed out that she could still trade one for one into Kauai with independent exchange companies which would still get her the two weeks of timeshare exchanges she was looking for, and pointed out two specific independents which had good inventory in Kauai.
> 
> Problem created by Points Lite solved thanks to independent exchange companies!




and on flip side - I am EXTREMELY happy with Trade Power Units - I get 4-5 weeks ski vacation for my 2 prime ocean front weeks instead of 2 !!!  I discovered that my July 4th unit got a 60 - I used to get just one great ski week for it.  Now I can get 2-3 weeks for it.  

I am so happy to have that transparency.


----------



## Carolinian

Joe M. said:


> Everyone posting here can come up with multiple examples showing one system or the other is better. My conclusion is that in some cases the old system was better and in some cases the new system is better. I will not agree with anyone who says that one system is consistently better than the other.



Bingo!

On another site, there was a poll on how many could get the trades they used to get one-for-one with only one week in the new Points Lite and how many now needed more than one week to get those same trades.  It came out about even, with half saying they could still get it done with one and half saying they now needed more than one of their weeks to get the same trades.  Some have benefited by the moving of the goalposts, especially those in overbuilt areas who are now overpointed.  I guess we should expect them to fiercely defend it.

And I agree that most here understand trading within a band or range.  It was clear, however, that the person I was responding to did not.


----------



## Carolinian

AwayWeGo said:


> Those out there who prefer the gloom & the doom -- _and you know who you are_ -- can abandon RCI forthwith & go sign up with I-I & see how you like it.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



If you want to talk gloom and doom, you should read the latest _Timesharing Today Express_ where they are projecting that 50% of owner-controlled resorts are facing insolvency in the next few years.  Or the account of last year's Timeshare Stripped Bare conference in the UK where a major European developer reported that the cheap rentals (thanks, RCI!) were causing them serious problems not only with sales but with member retention.

There are consequences for timesharing from the RCI rental program, the effective end of the 45 day window, and Points Lite.

Yes, you can play shoot the messenger, but that does not change what RCI has unleashed that is kicking the financial props out from under our resorts.


----------



## Carolinian

vckempson said:


> Paris should.  That's why it's a more expensive trade and gets 2x the TPU's on deposit.  So what's your point?



The gap is *much* wider than two to one.  RCI's numbers overpoint the overbuilt areas which have a glut of excess supply in the system.  

There are rare hard to trade into areas that one can trade even from overbuilt areas and that either undervalues the rare areas or overvalues the dime-a-dozen areas.  You own a dime-a-dozen area, so that makes you happy, so I understand your personal position.


----------



## Carolinian

Hmmm, Manhattan Club.  Under the new system, RCI gives an owner there a bit over 30 points lite for a deposit, but even in the dead of winter wants 60 points lite to trade in, even when they ~20 dead of winter weeks sitting in the spacebank.  Do you _really_ think that is better?



tombo said:


> Under the old system you deposited your week and never knew what it could see or exchange for until you had deposited it. Want Manhattan Club? Under the old program you deposited your best week and hoped. Still didn't see Manhattan Club? PM other TUGERS and see if they can see any with their deposit. If they can and you can't, your deposit wasn't strong enough. Deposit another tiger week and hope. Now using the new system before you deposit you can see all of RCI's inventory and what it costs. You know how much RCI will gve you for your week before you deposit it. You know if your week will have enough PU's to trade for the week you want before you deposit it. You also know if you are short a few TPU's which week you need to deposit and combine to exchange for your desired week. You now know what the weeks you own are worth before you deposit them, and you know what the week(s) you are looking for will cost you. This is MUCH better than the old system.
> 
> If you simply look at who does better on specific exchanges under the old system and the new system, some were better before, and some are better now. If you look at the new program versus the old system in it's totallity, the new system is MUCH BETTER.


----------



## Carolinian

Hmmm, it seems you were the one *busted* for using a sleight of hand in flipping between two different measurements to deliberately distort the numbers of timeshares in the US and Europe.  I gave you two chances to walk back your deliberate misrepresentations and you refused to do so.

You are hardly one to be accusing others of mis-statements or half truths.




tombo said:


> The choices are to let Carlolinian say half truths and mis-statements about the new program and RCI in general and let them stand unchallenged as though true, or someone can refute it. If nothing is said to refute him any guest, newbie, or rare reader will assume that RCI sucks,that it is not worth joining, that the new Weeks TPU values are cheating all members, that it cheats Europe, that it favors orlando, etc, etc, etc. If no one said anything one could assume from reading these threads that RCI sucks and the independents are the only way to exchange because Carolinian says so and no one on TUG disagreed. What a disservice to people trying to find out about the new program.


----------



## tombo

Carolinian said:


> Hmmm, Manhattan Club.  Under the new system, RCI gives an owner there a bit over 30 points lite for a deposit, but even in the dead of winter wants 60 points lite to trade in, even when they ~20 dead of winter weeks sitting in the spacebank.  Do you _really_ think that is better?



Yes it is much better. Would I like to pay 30 TPU's for Manhattan club? Absolutelly, but that is not an option. I would also like to get 60 TPU's for every one of my deposits and only pay 15 TPU's for everyone else's.  Thatis not an option either. 

Why is it better? Simple. I deposited a week that I get 45 TPU's for and a week I get 35 TPU's for, paid $99 to combine them giving me a total of 80 TPU's, and I now can exchange for The Manhattan Club IF IT IS WORTH IT TO ME TO PAY 60 TPU"S for a one bed unit and I will have 20 TPU's eft over to trade for another week or 2. Under the old system neither one of these trades would have gotten Manhattan Club by themselves. So under the old system I could have deposited 2, 3,4 ,or even 5 weeks and none of them would have gotten Manahattan Club. I had to deposit my weeks under the old system and HOPE that my week fell into a magical unknown "band" that would see Mahattan Club. Now I know what my week is worth, what the Manhattan Club costs to trade for, and I can combine weeks and trade for NY IF it is worth it to me. 

Explain to me how it was better under the old system. I can tell you it was only better under the old system for the FEW experts who had tiger traders perpetually deposited and knew how to use them. I can't tell you how many times I saw a week at Manhattan Club, Hawaii, St John, Aruba, St Lucia, HGVC, or some other hard to find location listed on sightings and I would run to RCI and COULDN"T SEE ANY AVAILABILITY. I would PM the TUGGER who listed it and ask them if it was still there, and they would say yes. I would deposit what I considered to be a better week and still couldn't see it. I would PM them again and it was gone. Now I know what is available without depositing anything, I know what the Manahattan Club, HGVC, Hawaii, St Jhn, Aruba, etc, etc, will cost me, and I CAN EXCHANGE FOR IT BY COMBINING IF I FEEL IT IS WORTH IT TO ME. I NOW HAVE AN OPTION I DIDN"T HAVE BEFORE. How is that not BETTER?

Now before you say SFX trades for Manhattan Club, HGVC, Hawaii, StJohn, Aruba, Europe, and other hard to trade for places one for one as though it is a fact, let's be honest because it is not a fact for most TUGGERS. Unless you own in California or Hawaii,and unless you want to exchange for California or Hawaii,  using SFX is not a good option.The 2 deposits I made worth 45 TPU's and 35 TPU's in RCI are both on the Florida panhandle. SFX will not accept either exchange for deposit. So how can I use the great independent SFX to exchange one for one for New York, Aruba, Hawaii, HGVC, St John, Sanibel Island,europe, etc,etc, when they won't accept my weeks? I CAN"T!

Let's look at what I mainly own which is in the southeast because I mainly purchase weeks at locations I can drive to. SFX will not accept any of my Panama City Beach weeks and none of my Destin weeks for exchange, but RCI gladly will and give me good values for them allowing me to exchange them for locations all over the world. SFX won't let me exchange them for anything anywhere. I can't deposit my Orange Beach 4th of July oceanfront week which is an unbelievably valuable week as there are only 2 resorts in Orange beach. On the entire panhandle of Florida and Alabama SFX only accepts one resort period, and it is on the bay in Destin. Not a single beachfront week anywhere on the panhandle is an acceptable deposit or exchange with SFX. 

What a deal. QUIT RCI AND USE SFX EXCLUSIVELLY. What a joke. RCI has probably 40 resorts on the panhandle, SFX has one.  Outside of California and Hawaii the acceptable locations for SFX are VERY limited. In addition to not accepting my panhandle weeks, SFX also doesn't accept accept my Gold Crown Gatlinburg weeks one of which is 4th of July every year. SFX is not accepting my North Carolina mountain weeks one which is 4th of July and one which is ski season, because SFX only accepts one resort in the NC mountains, and my resort is not that one. They don't accept my Alabama beach weeks because they accept zero Alabama beach weeks. They don't accept my Daytona Beach weeks which are bike week and typically rent for high dollars. Other than Hilton Head, SFX has a very small list of acceptable resorts and locations in the southeast. In the entire state of Tennessee  SFX only accepts a TOTAL OF 4 resorts, only 2 of which are in Gatlinburg.

Out of 20 different weeks I own at 11 diferent resorts, SFX will ONLY ACCEPT MY ONE ARUBA WEEK FOR EXCHANGE!!!!!  RCI will accept everything I own for exchange (but one which is an II only resort). Yeah let me quit RCI where I can deposit 19 of my 20 weeks for exchange and go to SFX exclusivelly where I can ONLY exchange my ONE ARUBA WEEK each year. What a deal.

If you have a week or weeks that SFX accepts, you can not trade for the Gulf panhandle beaches. You limit the resorts available to you in the North Carolina mountains, the Smoky Mountains, New orleans, etc, etc, etc. Panama City Beach was voted 12th best beach in the world this year by Trip Adviser travelers, but you will never trade for a week in Panama City using SFX. You will not trade for the new Wyndham in Gatlinburg.SFX only accepts one location on the favorite of yours, the OBX. You won't trade for much of the southeast nomatter how good your week is with SFX because they don't offer much in the southeast. On the othe hand you can trade for more places than you can ever visit in the southeast using RCI. RCI is much better for most exchanges and exchangers.

You love to say that SFX is better. but when RCI accepts and allows you to exchange for 1000's of resorts that SFX isn not interested in, the facts show why RCI is actually MUCH better for MOST people. You might not like the TPU's RCI assigns to some of your weeks, but at least RCI will accept them for exchange. I would much rather get 12 TPU's for depositing my week with RCI than have SFX tell me that they don't want my week at all. I would also much rather trade for a Panama City ocean front week in RCI like I did last week than not be able to trade for a week there EVER because SFX doesn't do that area. RCI has 1000's of more locations that SFX for deposut and trade. RCI IS MUCH BETTER for most owners.


----------



## bilfbr245

Several on this thread have made disparaging comments about Carolinian.  I feel I must spring to his defense here and say that I find his posts to be more than acceptable except for two very minor problems.  The first, as suggested by others, is that many of his views seem to reflect a deeply set and pervasive bias, and that he seems to be more or less incapable of escaping the effects of this bias to analyze information in an objective fashion.  It may be true, as many of you suggest, that this renders most of his views erroneous, and that therefore it would be detrimental to readers if they followed his advice.  However, I see little risk of this happening  because the flaws in his logic are usually quite self evident, and would be apparent to even poorly informed readers. 

The second problem I have, also very minor, is that if you examine his posts closely enough, you can almost detect a strain that might be called uncivil or abrasive.  Such a small point really that I almost hesitate to mention it.  While this is certainly off-putting to any reader who places a value on polite discourse, I am sure that most mature readers are able to ignore this unpleasant feature in his posts.

And again, except for these very minor issues, I find his posts to be very acceptable, and hope that he will continue to provide us with many more.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*I Resemble That Remark.*




bilfbr245 said:


> The second problem I have, also very minor, is that if you examine his posts closely enough, you can almost detect a strain that might be called uncivil or abrasive.  Such a small point really that I almost hesitate to mention it.  While this is certainly off-putting to any reader who places a value on polite discourse, I am sure that most mature readers are able to ignore this unpleasant feature in his posts.
> 
> And again, except for these very minor issues, I find his posts to be very acceptable, and hope that he wil continue to provide us with many more.


I know _exactly_ what you mean. 

Shux, I have a bit of that same tendency myself. 

Click here for a musical interpretation. 

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


----------



## MuranoJo

IMO, Manhattan Club is not a good example of what's better about the new system.  In fact, for years before 'the change,' many of us got in using fairly weak deposits--but we used Sightings and jumped on it.  And now the transparent value is 60 or so, and not worth it to me.

However, bottom line, I do like the new system much better.  The $99 to combine and extend for two years is much better than the previous fees which were about double just to extend for one year.  Overall, the flexibility is much improved.


----------



## Carolinian

The best value in using independent exchange companies is to join a mix of them, not just one.  I have gotten some great exchanges in Europe, the US, and the Caribbean using DAE, but I recently joined SFX and deposited a week with them to add another dimension. They have a resort affiliated with them in London, the ultimate high demand / low supply timeshare destination, that booted RCI out the door and now uses SFX as their principal exchange company.  I will probably join UKRE, too.

How is Manhattan Club a good deal for anyone but RCI itself?
~30+ points lite to deposit a week
60 points lite to trade in
How is that fair or honest for either the member who deposits or the one who trades in?
Manhattan Club is the opposite of overbuilt Orlando, where RCI hands out points lite like candy to members who deposit but charges significantly less to exchange in.




tombo said:


> Yes it is much better. Would I like to pay 30 TPU's for Manhattan club? Absolutelly, but that is not an option. I would also like to get 60 TPU's for every one of my deposits and only pay 15 TPU's for everyone else's.  Thatis not an option either.
> 
> Why is it better? Simple. I deposited a week that I get 45 TPU's for and a week I get 35 TPU's for, paid $99 to combine them giving me a total of 80 TPU's, and I now can exchange for The Manhattan Club IF IT IS WORTH IT TO ME TO PAY 60 TPU"S for a one bed unit and I will have 20 TPU's eft over to trade for another week or 2. Under the old system neither one of these trades would have gotten Manhattan Club by themselves. So under the old system I could have deposited 2, 3,4 ,or even 5 weeks and none of them would have gotten Manahattan Club. I had to deposit my weeks under the old system and HOPE that my week fell into a magical unknown "band" that would see Mahattan Club. Now I know what my week is worth, what the Manhattan Club costs to trade for, and I can combine weeks and trade for NY IF it is worth it to me.
> 
> Explain to me how it was better under the old system. I can tell you it was only better under the old system for the FEW experts who had tiger traders perpetually deposited and knew how to use them. I can't tell you how many times I saw a week at Manhattan Club, Hawaii, St John, Aruba, St Lucia, HGVC, or some other hard to find location listed on sightings and I would run to RCI and COULDN"T SEE ANY AVAILABILITY. I would PM the TUGGER who listed it and ask them if it was still there, and they would say yes. I would deposit what I considered to be a better week and still couldn't see it. I would PM them again and it was gone. Now I know what is available without depositing anything, I know what the Manahattan Club, HGVC, Hawaii, St Jhn, Aruba, etc, etc, will cost me, and I CAN EXCHANGE FOR IT BY COMBINING IF I FEEL IT IS WORTH IT TO ME. I NOW HAVE AN OPTION I DIDN"T HAVE BEFORE. How is that not BETTER?
> 
> Now before you say SFX trades for Manhattan Club, HGVC, Hawaii, StJohn, Aruba, Europe, and other hard to trade for places one for one as though it is a fact, let's be honest because it is not a fact for most TUGGERS. Unless you own in California or Hawaii,and unless you want to exchange for California or Hawaii,  using SFX is not a good option.The 2 deposits I made worth 45 TPU's and 35 TPU's in RCI are both on the Florida panhandle. SFX will not accept either exchange for deposit. So how can I use the great independent SFX to exchange one for one for New York, Aruba, Hawaii, HGVC, St John, Sanibel Island,europe, etc,etc, when they won't accept my weeks? I CAN"T!
> 
> Let's look at what I mainly own which is in the southeast because I mainly purchase weeks at locations I can drive to. SFX will not accept any of my Panama City Beach weeks and none of my Destin weeks for exchange, but RCI gladly will and give me good values for them allowing me to exchange them for locations all over the world. SFX won't let me exchange them for anything anywhere. I can't deposit my Orange Beach 4th of July oceanfront week which is an unbelievably valuable week as there are only 2 resorts in Orange beach. On the entire panhandle of Florida and Alabama SFX only accepts one resort period, and it is on the bay in Destin. Not a single beachfront week anywhere on the panhandle is an acceptable deposit or exchange with SFX.
> 
> What a deal. QUIT RCI AND USE SFX EXCLUSIVELLY. What a joke. RCI has probably 40 resorts on the panhandle, SFX has one.  Outside of California and Hawaii the acceptable locations for SFX are VERY limited. In addition to not accepting my panhandle weeks, SFX also doesn't accept accept my Gold Crown Gatlinburg weeks one of which is 4th of July every year. SFX is not accepting my North Carolina mountain weeks one which is 4th of July and one which is ski season, because SFX only accepts one resort in the NC mountains, and my resort is not that one. They don't accept my Alabama beach weeks because they accept zero Alabama beach weeks. They don't accept my Daytona Beach weeks which are bike week and typically rent for high dollars. Other than Hilton Head, SFX has a very small list of acceptable resorts and locations in the southeast. In the entire state of Tennessee  SFX only accepts a TOTAL OF 4 resorts, only 2 of which are in Gatlinburg.
> 
> Out of 20 different weeks I own at 11 diferent resorts, SFX will ONLY ACCEPT MY ONE ARUBA WEEK FOR EXCHANGE!!!!!  RCI will accept everything I own for exchange (but one which is an II only resort). Yeah let me quit RCI where I can deposit 19 of my 20 weeks for exchange and go to SFX exclusivelly where I can ONLY exchange my ONE ARUBA WEEK each year. What a deal.
> 
> You love to say that SFX is better. but when RCI accepts and allows you to exchange for 1000's of resorts that SFX isn not interested in, the facts show why RCI is actually MUCH better for MOST people. You might not like the TPU's RCI assigns to some of your weeks, but at least RCI will accept them for exchange. I would much rather get 12 TPU's for depositing my week with RCI than have SFX tell me that they don't want my week at all. I would also much rather trade for a Panama City ocean front week in RCI like I did last week than not be able to trade for a week there EVER because SFX doesn't do that area. RCI has 1000's of more locations that SFX for deposut and trade. RCI IS MUCH BETTER for most owners.


----------



## Carolinian

There is a big difference between some of those who post here on one hand and those who used to post on the old TimeshareBeat / Street Talk site.  There those who participated were mostly people involved in the timeshare industry, not timeshare owners who exchanged like here.  Those in the industry, even those working in Orlando, would never deny the assertion that Orlando or certain other areas were overbuilt in timeshare.  In fact, I remember some interesting discussions about what other areas might be on a trajectory to become overbuilt.

In my early days on this site, one of the more frequent posters was Fletch, who was regarded as one of the more astute timeshare experts on TUG.  He even wrote regular columns on timesharing.  Fletch quit TUG when he took a job in the timeshare industry, feeling that it would be a conflict of interest to continue to post, something I disagreed with as I thought that TUG would have still benefitted from his continued involvement.  Fletch frequently commented on these boards about Orlando being overbuilt and part of his common buying advice was not to buy there for that reason.

Now we have a small but very shrill band on TUG of two overlapping groups, one who owns or has other connections to Orlando, and another which is head over heels in love with Points Lite and everything about it.  Both are in full fledged denial that Orlando is overbuilt.  Sort of like flat-earthers.  They can't or won't get their heads around the reality that when there is just too much of something, no matter how good they and others may think it is, it's value is less than something for which there is more demand than supply.  It is really a simple principle of economics, but they just don't get it.

When denialism means some will ignore the most simple principles of economics, it makes discussion difficult.  Maybe that is why the most shrill of them has to so frequently resort to ad hominem personal attacks.


----------



## tombo

Carolinian said:


> The best value in using independent exchange companies is to join a mix of them, not just one.  I have gotten some great exchanges in Europe, the US, and the Caribbean using DAE, but I recently joined SFX and deposited a week with them to add another dimension. They have a resort affiliated with them in London, the ultimate high demand / low supply timeshare destination, that booted RCI out the door and now uses SFX as their principal exchange company.  I will probably join UKRE, too.
> 
> How is Manhattan Club a good deal for anyone but RCI itself?
> ~30+ points lite to deposit a week
> 60 points lite to trade in
> How is that fair or honest for either the member who deposits or the one who trades in?
> Manhattan Club is the opposite of overbuilt Orlando, where RCI hands out points lite like candy to members who deposit but charges significantly less to exchange in.



Get over the Manhattan Club and Orlando as the primary reason(s) to hate RCI. RCI has more locations worldwide than any other exchange company, and more inventory than all of the independents combined. I have yet to stay at the Manhattan Club, and Orlando is very low on my list of places to travel. I don't own an Orlando week. When I look at exchanges in RCI these are not my favorites or the standards which I base my exchange successes on. 

You deftly ignore the fact that SFX accepts very few resorts in the US in the  southeast while RCI accepts hundreds. You ignore the FACT that out of 11 resorts I own IN THE US IN THE SOUTHEAST at high demand locations (none of which are Orlando), SFX only accepts one for exchange. You instead trot out a London resort that you say is high demand which is no longer RCI. 10 of my 11 resorts are exchanged within RCI. 1 of my 11 resorts is SFX. You have one London resort not with RCI anymore which I am sure is now in II as SFX has no exclusive resorts.. That in a nutshell is the difference between the 2. RCI has the far majority of resorts that SFX offers for exchange available for exchange. SFX has a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE of the resorts RCI offers available for deposit and/or exchange. I can get almost any SFX resort/location exchanging through RCI. There are entire destinations that you can't get using SFX that you can easily get using RCI. RCI is the easy choice with more inventory, more locations, more resorts, and more availability.

You own an England resort few of us care about which is not in RCI. Take a quick poll here and see how many TUGGERS are going to the mountains in the southeast this summer, how many are going to a beach in the southeast this summer, how many are going to orlando this summer and compare it to how many are going to London this summer. I bet the demand for the US dwarfs the demand for London. SFX has a niche market, but virtually every resort that SFX offers for exchange is offered by RCI. If it is not offered by RCI it is offered by II. SFX has ZERO EXCLUSIVE RESORTS. 

Of course DAE is a great alternative to RCI to you also. Not if you look at facts. Currently in the US there are 68,639 weeks available for exchange using RCI. In DAE there are 128 weeks TOTAL for exchange in the entire US in all of 2011 and 2012. I am a member of DAE, but anyone can check availability for free without joining. There is ONE beach week in the south available for 2011 in the entire US in DAE, and it is in Tampa in August. There is not one week currently available in DAE for Tennessee, North Carolina, or South Carolina. The places I typically vacation have ZERO availability in DAE for the next 2 years. Let me quit RCI and use them. That would be a really smart move.

In RCI  currently there are 10's of 1000's of beach weeks available in RCI (over 8000 beach weeks in Florida alone with 730 on the panhandle,4358 southern atlantic coast, 2888 northern Atlantic coast, etc, etc,), 2339 weeks available in North Carolina, 3345 weeks available in South Carolina, 1483 weeks available in Tennessee, etc,etc, etc.

The independents can on occassion for some locations get people the trades they want, but to suggest that they are as good or better than RCI is ignoring facts. I will take  my chances on RCI which has current availability in hundreds of locations I want for dates I am interested in, over SFX which doesn't accept most of my weeks or destinations for exchange or deposit, and over DAE which currently has zero availability for the places I am looking to travel. 

For any who are on the fence, log onto DAE and see if where you want to go is available, and look at SFX and see if they accept the weeeks you own for deposit and if they have availability in locations/resorts you want to travel to. For some SFX will work, especially California and Hawaii exchangers, and DAE might RARELLY have a week you want available, but day in and day out more people will have success getting the exchanges they want through RCI  than all of the independents combined. The theory of using independent exchange companies and dumping RCI sounds good, however the facts show that for most people to do so would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.


----------



## Carolinian

While DAE and SFX work for me, others may do better to add HTSE, Platinum, or Trading Places.  And I know that DAE can get me a lot of places that RCI cannot.  With most exchange companies, one gets the best exchanges with ongoing requests rather than finding it online.  That has been true for me with both DAE and RCI.

Hey, you were the one who brought up Manhattan Club as your big example.  Now you are walking it back.  Guess it was not such a good example after all, now was it?  

SFX accepts more resorts than are on their list.  If in doubt, call and ask them.  And BTW, Sloan Garden Court, which kicked RCI out the door, is not a resort I own at, but one I plan to trade into.

As to London being ultra high demand, ultra low supply, not only did Bootleg acknowledge that but RCI, institutionally, has as well.  I am sure you are familiar with the VIP program that allows HOA board members and resort managers to trade into any week RCI has availible by putting up any week of the same size and color code.  In the entire world, there is only one area ring fenced where you cannot trade in with VIP because of the extreme low supply and extreme high demand among RCI members.  That one area in the world is London, England.  Someone in the priveleged group can use VIP to get into New York, San Francisco, Key West, Charleston, San Diego, Paris, or Venice, but NOT London.



tombo said:


> Get over the Manhattan Club and Orlando. I have yet to stay at the Manhattan Club, and Orlando is very low on my list of places to travel. I don't own an Orlando week. When I look at exchanges in RCI these are not my favorites or the standards which I base my exchange successes on.
> 
> You deftly ignore the fact that SFX accepts very few resorts in the US in the  southeast while RCI accepts hundreds. You ignore the FACT that out of 11 resorts I own IN THE US IN THE SOUTHEAST at high demand locations (none of which are Orlando), SFX only accepts one for exchange. You instead trot out a London resort YOU OWN that you say is high demand which is no longer RCI. 10 of my 11 resorts are exchanged within RCI. 1 of my 11 resorts is SFX. You have one London resort not with RCI anymore. That in a nutshell is the difference between the 2. RCI has the far majority of resorts that SFX offers for exchange available for exchange. SFX has a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE of the resorts RCI offers available for deposit and/or exchange. I can get almost any SFX resort/location exchanging through RCI. There are entire destinations that you can't get using SFX that you can easily get using RCI. RCI is the easy choice with more inventory, more locations, more resorts, and more availability.
> 
> You own an England resort few of us care about which is not in RCI. Take a quick poll here and see how many TUGGERS are going to the mountains in the southeast this summer, how many are going to a beach in the southeast this summer, how many are going to orlando this summer and compare it to how many are going to London this summer. I bet the demand for the US dwarfs the demand for London. SFX has a niche market, but virtually every resort that SFX offers for exchange is offered by RCI. If it is not offered by RCI it is offered by II. SFX has ZERO EXCLUSIVE RESORTS.
> 
> Of course DAE is a great alternative to RCI to you also. Not if you look at facts. Currently in the US there are 68,639 weeks available for exchange using RCI. In DAE there are 128 weeks TOTAL for exchange in the entire US in all of 2011 and 2012. I am a member of DAE, but anyone can check availability for free without joining. There is ONE beach week in the south available for 2011 in the entire US in DAE, and it is in Tampa in August. There is not one week currently available in DAE for Tennessee, North Carolina, or South Carolina. The places I typically vacation have ZERO availability in DAE for the next 2 years. Let me quit RCI and use them. That would be a really smart move.
> 
> In RCI  currently there are 10's of 1000's of beach weeks available in RCI (over 8000 beach weeks in Florida alone with 730 on the panhandle,4358 southern atlantic coast, 2888 northern Atlantic coast, etc, etc,), 2339 weeks available in North Carolina, 3345 weeks available in South Carolina, 1483 weeks available in Tennessee, etc,etc, etc.
> 
> The independents can on occassion for some locations get people the trades they want, but to suggest that they are as good or better than RCI is ignoring facts. I will take  my chances on RCI which has currently availability in hundreds of locations I want for dates I am interested in, over SFX which doesn't accept most of my weeks or destinations for exchange or deposit, and over DAE which currently has zero availability for the places I am looking to travel.
> 
> For any who are on the fence, log onto DAE and see if where you want to go is available, and look at SFX and see if they accept the weeeks you own for deposit and if they have availability in locations/resorts you want to travel to. For some SFX will work, especially California and Hawaii exchangers, and DAE might RARELLY have a week you want available, but day in and day out more people will have success getting the exchanges they want through RCI  than all of the independents combined. The theory of using independent exchange companies and dumping RCI sounds good, however the facts show that for most people to do so would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.


----------



## tombo

Carolinian said:


> While DAE and SFX work for me, others may do better to add HTSE, Platinum, or Trading Places.  And I know that DAE can get me a lot of places that RCI cannot.  With most exchange companies, one gets the best exchanges with ongoing requests rather than finding it online.  That has been true for me with both DAE and RCI.
> 
> Hey, you were the one who brought up Manhattan Club as your big example.  Now you are walking it back.  Guess it was not such a good example after all, now was it?
> 
> SFX accepts more resorts than are on their list.  If in doubt, call and ask them.  And BTW, Sloan Garden Court, which kicked RCI out the door, is not a resort I own at, but one I plan to trade into.
> 
> .



Manhattan Club is still a good example, but you grab one example and act as though that is the entire story. You are like a broken record. You attack it and nit pick it. If you can find some reason that Orlando or NY isn't good with RCI in your opinion, then you feel have won your case. That is not even close to correct. RCI has way too many locations/resorts to narrow the value of RCI to one or two cities. I expanded the discussion to show availability in the southeast, the mountains, and the beaches to show that RCI is head and shoulders above the independents for the places I go every year. I go to Hawaii sometimes, Aruba, sometimes, St Maarten, NY, etc, etc, sometimes, but EVERY year I travel the southeast. For me RCI is head and shoulders above any independent for my local trips. For Hawaii or some Islands, SFX might work well for me IF they will accept one or more of my weeks not on their list.

The Manhattan Club is too high IMO at 58 and 60 TPU's. That is why they are still sitting there. It is the demand and supply you so love. The demand is there, the supply is there, but the price point is to high so there is little demand at the TPU's being charged. On the other hand there are a couple of other NY resorts that showed up at half the price and they are almost all gone. Many exchanged for NY through RCI recently for sure because the other resorts inventory is almost gone. How many did successful exchanges for NY through the independents during the last few weeks? The RCI non Manhattan Club inventory has been flying off of the shelves and few weeks remain. 

Unlike the independents where limited people make one exchange here and there, RCI completes hundreds of exchanges a day. People are excited and post about it when they get a good trade through an independent. When people get a good exchange using RCI few post about it because it is such a routine event.

As a member I HAVE THE OPTION to exchange for the Manhattan Club if I feel it is worth it. If the dates work and I have the points to combine, I can exchange for it. I know in advance what it costs me to do so. I can without a doubt exchange for a Manhattan Club week RIGHT NOW with RCI. Am I guaranteed a week at the Manhattan Club using SFX or DAE right now? Nope. All I can tell you for sure is that none are available now on DAE and there are many available on RCI. that is transparency and availability. Idf you don't like what RCI is charging, don't exchange for it. But having the option beats an independent where they have little or no availability.

You love transparency. I know what RCI will give me for my weeks before I deposit them. I know what is available and what it will cost me to exchange for it before I deposit or exchange using RCI. That is transparency. Why would I call SFX and see if they might take my weeks?  Even if they take my weeks they will have little if any inventory in the areas I want to visit annually because they don't list them on their web site. I can't see whether or not SFX will take my week or what it will get me. No transparency. Little availability. Not an alternative other than for certain niche locations.


----------



## Carolinian

You say the new system tells you how much an exchange is going to cost you in Points Lite?  Well, it would if it is sitting online.  But NOT if it is an ongoing request.  At Manhattan Club, RCI almost doubles the number of points lite they charge a member exchanging in over what they pay to a member depositing the same week.  If you are putting in an ongoing request with RCI you are at their mercy for the same thing.  The number they are currenly paying for deposits is not necessarily what they will charge you.  It could be a lot more.  It is a total crapshoot with RCI.  With DAE or SFX or UKRE (or the old RCI Weeks), I know exactly what it is going to cost me, and that is one exchange credit.  When it comes to ongoing requests, the new Points Lite is NOT transparent.  On the contrary, it is a total shell game where they can charge you however many points lite they happen to feel like charging you.

And as I pointed out, in both DAE and RCI, most of my best exchanges have been from ongoing searches.  They catch the best inventory before it ever gets online.  Indeed, my summer UK weeks have always themselves been taken by ongoing searches with both DAE and RCI and never made it online at either.  For example, I needed a specific resort and specific week in the Cayman Islands for my neice's honeymoon, and in about a week after my request, DAE got me the week and resort needed.  Warm weather Ireland is a high demand and low supply area.  I put in a request with DAE for a specific resort anytime between April and September.  A few weeks later, they called and offered me any week I wanted at that resort between April and July, and I chose the one that fit in well with another trip I already had scheduled to the UK (actually another DAE exchange).




tombo said:


> Manhattan Club is still a good example, but you grab one example and act as though that is the entire story. You are like a broken record. You attack it and nit pick it. If you can find some reason that Orlando or NY isn't good with RCI in your opinion, then you feel have won your case. That is not even close to correct. RCI has way too many locations/resorts to narrow the value of RCI to one or two cities. I expanded the discussion to show availability in the southeast, the mountains, and the beaches to show that RCI is head and shoulders above the independents for the places I go every year. I go to Hawaii sometimes, Aruba, sometimes, St Maarten, NY, etc, etc, sometimes, but EVERY year I travel the southeast. For me RCI is head and shoulders above any independent for my local trips. For Hawaii or some Islands, SFX might work well for me.
> 
> The Manhattan Club is too high IMO at 58 and 60 TPU's. That is why they are still sitting there. It is the demand and supply you so love. The demand is there, the supply is there, but the price point is to high so there is little demand at the TPU's being charged. On the other hand there are a couple of other resorts that showed up at half the price and they are almost all gone. Yes that was exchanging for NY through RCI too, and many did it successfully recently. Not one exchange here and there, hundreds a day.
> 
> As a member I HAVE THE OPTION to exchange for the Manhattan Club if I feel it is worth it. If the dates work and I have the points to combine, I can exchange for it. I know in advance what it costs me to do so. I can without a doubt exchange for a Manhattan Club week RIGHT NOW with RCI. Am I guaranteed a week at the Manhattan Club using SFX or DAE? Nope. All I can tell you for sure is that none are available now on DAE and there are many available on RCI. that is transparency and availability. Idf you don't like what RCI is charging, don't exchange for it. But having the option beats an independent where they have little or no availability.
> 
> You love transparency. I know what RCI will give me for my weeks before I deposit them. I know what is available and what it will cost me to exchange for it before I deposit or exchange using RCI. That is transparency. Why would I call SFX and see if they might take my weeks?  Even if they take my weeks they will have little if any inventory in the areas I want to visit annually because they don't list them on their web site. I can't see whether or not SFX will take my week or what it will get me. No transparency. Little availability. Not an alternative other than for certain niche locations.


----------



## vckempson

Not sure if you can get to this page directly.  If not, there's an "RCI Weeks Program Activity" link from the "My Account" tab that shows how many weeks are deposited vs taken by RCI members.  It further breaks this down into TPU categories.  What you see is that only half the weeks deposited get exchanged into.  It holds true for high value weeks just as much as low value weeks.  

http://www.rci.com/RCI/RCIW/RCIW_index?body=RCIW_Program_Activity 

That's an aweful lot of excess inventory that's sitting there unused.   _If trading patterns remained consistent_, you could theoretically give all depositors twice as many points on deposit as it cost to get back in.  That would generate twice the trades which would then soak up the inventory.  

The amount of points given and taken are clearly not a zero sum game.  With some places getting more TPU's on deposit than it costs to get back in, it would appear that RCI is trying to get more trades and soak up that excess inventory.  That would help to explain why they added "utilization" as an input, thus allowing more points than you might otherwise get on deposit.  It also suggests that there's more than enough to rent out, without taking weeks away from those who want to trade into them.   

Obviously, that's based on a macro view without having any information for specific resorts.   If we had that level of information, it might contradict these general conclusions.


----------



## Carolinian

I am sure that in overbuilt areas, there is more than enough to rent out and still let everyone get trades.  That is not however true in other areas in prime or semi-prime times.  OBX beachfront resorts always had more exchange demand than deposits in summer and at least equal to demand from Spring Break through Thanksgiving.  When RCI started renting exchange deposits, it was those hard to get summer weeks that there was more exchange demand than supply that they were primarily renting to the general public.  Also, Bootleg and Anon both told us that it was the high demand weeks that were so often shifted in the RCI rental pool.  Since Points Lite does not always track supply and demand, that is not a measurement I would use on their rentals.  Times and places where there is more exchange demand than there is exchange supply should NOT be rented PERIOD.

In the last few years, I have been much more inclined to attend the welcome meetings early in the timeshare week than I used to be.  I attended one at a UK resort where I had a DAE exchange.  Only one other exchange family was there and they were American having come in through RCI.  After talking about the resort and the area, there was some general conversation.  One of the Brits who owned there asked us exchangers how much trouble we had in trading in.  The RCI couple said they had been trying for a couple of years and felt lucky to get in.  I had had much less of a wait with DAE.  Then the Brits started talking about how exchanging through RCI had gone downhill over the past years and it was a lot harder than it used to be to get good trades.  Some of them knew that RCI rentals were to blame, but I was the only one who knew about the class action in the US.  All of the Brits said they no longer deposited UK resorts to RCI because exchanges had gotten so bad, but a couple still gave RCI deposits from weeks they owned in the Canary Islands.  Over half the Brits were familiar with DAE and used it when they wanted to exchange.  Those not familiar were making notes.  But they really did not need to.  The resort had the printed DAE directory and the latest copy of the DAE magazine in all the units.  Clearly these owners had seen RCI exchanges go to hell in a handbasket since RCI had started its rentals.  In contrast, I attended a similar meeting at an Irish resort affiliated with II where I again had exchanged in through DAE, and the only other exchangers were a pair of older ladies from South Aftica who had also exchanged in through DAE.  The others present were all Seasons members, but many said they used II for exchanges and none seemed to have any problem with it.  The contrast between the two groups as to how they viewed their affiliated exchange company and the trades they could get could not have been greater.  At the UK resort, I later was talking to a member of the resort administrative staff who told me that the resort had several years before set up a program to help owners rent their weeks, and the reason for that was the growing complaints that members could no longer get the trades they had been getting through RCI.  She also said that another result was that a lot more owners were now using their weeks instead of exchanging them.




vckempson said:


> Not sure if you can get to this page directly.  If not, there's an "RCI Weeks Program Activity" link from the "My Account" tab that shows how many weeks are deposited vs taken by RCI members.  It further breaks this down into TPU categories.  What you see is that only half the weeks deposited get exchanged into.  It holds true for high value weeks just as much as low value weeks.
> 
> http://www.rci.com/RCI/RCIW/RCIW_index?body=RCIW_Program_Activity
> 
> That's an aweful lot of excess inventory that's sitting there unused.   _If trading patterns remained consistent_, you could theoretically give all depositors twice as many points on deposit as it cost to get back in.  That would generate twice the trades which would then soak up the inventory.
> 
> The amount of points given and taken are clearly not a zero sum game.  With some places getting more TPU's on deposit than it costs to get back in, it would appear that RCI is trying to get more trades and soak up that excess inventory.  That would help to explain why they added "utilization" as an input, thus allowing more points than you might otherwise get on deposit.  It also suggests that there's more than enough to rent out, without taking weeks away from those who want to trade into them.
> 
> Obviously, that's based on a macro view without having any information for specific resorts.   If we had that level of information, it might contradict these general conclusions.


----------



## Joe M.

The graphs do not show member deposits or exchanges. 

The dark bars show additional RCI weeks which do not come from member deposits. These would include developer weeks and possibly other sources.

The light grey bars show how many weeks deposited by members were rented or used for purposes other than exchange.

RCI is only showing that they put more weeks into the pool from outside sources than they take out when they rent member deposits. They are also showing that they do not skim off high TP units and replace them with low TP units. 

RCI actually had 2.1 million exchanges total in 2009 including Weeks and Points, with 1.35 million exchanges on the Weeks side.


----------



## Carolinian

I guess that includes things like the expensive all-inclusives that do not seem to be timeshare that they have now included in the Caribbean and the trailer park ''resorts'' they have included in continental Europe which also do not  seem to be timeshares.

As far as points lite numbers go, that is not a valid test as they can be renting out the underpointed but high demand weeks and replacing them with the overpointed overbuilt areas.  In fact, they may explain the reason for the underpointing to begin with.

On the OBX, RCI is renting the heck out of the hugely demanded summer weeks that members want to exchange into but aren't putting anything back for those who want summer OBX.  Maybe they are putting back things that there is too much of like Orlando and Masanutten.

An RCI employee posting over at TimeshareTalk, Anon, was asked about what RCI put back to replace weeks taken out of the Weeks system for Points members and he responded that they did not put anything at all back.  Given, that I do not think it is belevable that RCi would put like for like back.  And equal points lite is often light years away from being like for like.

What is really needed is legislation to include rentals in the disclosure booklets that exchange companies are required to give to timeshare purchasers and exchange companies which rent should have their feet held to the fire and be required to be detailed and specific.




Joe M. said:


> The graphs do not show member deposits or exchanges.
> 
> The dark bars show additional RCI weeks which do not come from member deposits. These would include developer weeks and possibly other sources.
> 
> The light grey bars show how many weeks deposited by members were rented or used for purposes other than exchange.
> 
> RCI is only showing that they put more weeks into the pool from outside sources than they take out when they rent member deposits. They are also showing that they do not skim off high TP units and replace them with low TP units.
> 
> RCI actually had 2.1 million exchanges total in 2009 including Weeks and Points, with 1.35 million exchanges on the Weeks side.


----------



## vckempson

Joe M. said:


> The graphs do not show member deposits or exchanges.
> 
> The dark bars show additional RCI weeks which do not come from member deposits. These would include developer weeks and possibly other sources.
> 
> The light grey bars show how many weeks deposited by members were rented or used for purposes other than exchange.
> 
> RCI is only showing that they put more weeks into the pool from outside sources than they take out when they rent member deposits. They are also showing that they do not skim off high TP units and replace them with low TP units.
> 
> RCI actually had 2.1 million exchanges total in 2009 including Weeks and Points, with 1.35 million exchanges on the Weeks side.



You're absolutely correct Joe.  I misinterpreted that.  Looking at the explanation below the graph, though, it does seem that almost half the deposited weeks go unused.  Here are the 2009 figures for the weeks program.

1.4 million - member deposits
585,000   - other deposits (developer weeks most likely)
741,000   - Total exchanges.
247,000   - Rented out
620,000   - Totally unused

(numbers rounded off so they might not quite add up)

The low TPU weeks had the highest percentage not used but even the high TPU weeks had about 18% go completely unused.  Not counting developer deposits only a little over half of the high TPU weeks were taken as exchanges.


----------



## Carolinian

As to ''other deposits'', developer deposits are undoubtedly included, but some of the other big ones are:

1) Landal resorts - a non-timeshre chain of rental resorts in the countryside in Europe.  Landal is owned by Wyndham, so they just slide over the weeks they do not expect to rent.  The resorts are fine if you just want to be in the green countryside, but are not that well located for sightseeing, skiing, beach, etc.
2) Trailer Park ''resorts'' - these show up for European members, but I am not sure that they do for US members - these appear to be mostly or entirely non-timeshare and are located in places like France and Italy - not sure if there is any ownership connection between Wyndham and the trailer parks. Some are decently located for other activities, but did people really buy timeshare in order to stay in a trailer park?
3) Wyndham hotels - non-timeshare, where Wyndham just slides over excess hotel week they do not expect to rent; mostly in the US but also in Europe.  Hey, wasn't one of the original selling points of timeshare that you wanted ''more than just a hotel room''?
4) non-timeshare properties with high AI fees - these are largely in the Caribbean but with some elsewhere and some appear to be nice resorts.  One wonders how much if anything RCI gives to the owners of these resorts for this inventory.  They may be excess weeks where the owner is happy to get the high AI fee to at least break even.  For exchangers, high AI's are often a deal breaker.

And for replacement inventory such as this, RCI is diverting and renting summer beach timeshare weeks that they are not replacing with anything comparable?


----------



## ampaholic

Joe M. said:


> RCI actually had 2.1 million exchanges total in 2009 including Weeks and Points, with 1.35 million exchanges on the Weeks side.



Holy :ignore: batman. 2.1 million times $149 - $179 !! I'm in the wrong business


----------



## AwayWeGo

*You Typed Another Mouthful.*




ampaholic said:


> 2.1 million times $149 - $179 !! I'm in the wrong business


Not only that, RCI doesn't pay anything for the inventory -- gets it all _el freebo_ from dues-paying RCI members. 

With those numbers, it's easy to understand why even card-carrying capitalists get groused off at RCI's price-gouging ways -- jacking up rates & fees & narrowing the _Instant Exchange_ opportunity window, etc. -- when instead they could be increasing profits by cutting prices to jack up volume. 

Shux upon'm. 

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


----------



## Carolinian

To give another example that does not include an overbuilt US area, where some owners get their panties in a twist and go ballistic on this forum, let me mention some overpointing in England.  While the high demand times and locations in England have been systematically underpointed, there is a curious group that goes the other way.

RCI followed DAE in allowing vacation cottage owners to deposit weeks into the timeshare exchange system, but unlike DAE limits it to certain countries.  One is the UK.  Indeed if you look at RCI's online directory for the UK, it is hard to pick out the real timeshares because there are so many of those cottages shown and no way to seperate them.  At least the DAE online directory allows one to look at only timeshare resorts or only cottages.  Another difference is that while the majority of DAE cottage deposits are in warm season, most of RCI's are in deep off season.  I am told that the cottage exchanges do not show on the US RCI site but RCI Europe shows a boatload of them in November and early December but almost none any other time of the year.

These are cottages are sometimes second homes for the owners but more often are vacation cottages that the owners rent out for most of the year. November and early December are the low point in the tourism calendar in the UK with short daylight hours, poor weather, and many sights outside the big cities closed.  It is a time owners are unlikely to be able to rent them, so they deposit them with RCI.  Even better for the owners, since they all deposit over the same six week period, very few of the weeks will ever be taken as exchanges or even RCI rentals.  Essentially, the owners take something they would normally get no return on and use it to get RCI points lite.  At worst they may have a cleaning fee and some utilities (but heck they may even charge those to anyone checking in) IF someone happens to take their week.

What was interesting was to pull a couple of ''resort numbers'' off the first page of RCI's availibility list for England for a couple of these cottages and feed them into the RCI Deposit Calculator for this November / December timeframe.  One came up as 17 and one as 19.

It an owner of one of these cottages deposited 3 weeks during this low value period, and combined the numbers they would have 51 points lite or 57 points lite.  This is at no cost to them other than the combining fee.  Heck they could even deposit 4, 5, or 6 of these low value weeks and combine them and have even higher numbers and compete with timeshare owners for high value inventory.

One should easily see how giving these points lite away like candy can distort the exchange system.  Timesharers with weeks of genuine value have to compete with punters like these cottage owners who ae playing the system.

I posted an interesting comparision on a European site for points lite values within England.  I compared a ''cottage'' that was a studio in a barn in November on one hand, with a summer week in a 2BR unit in a hard to get gold crown resort in the same region of England on the other.  The off season barn studio was given almost as many points lite as the high season 2BR in a gold crown real timeshare resort.  After exposing that, I went back and looked again and RCI knocked back the numbers on the barn studio twice, but even so it was still too high relative to the high season week.

The overpointing within Points Lite is hardly limited to overbuilt areas in the US.


----------



## MichaelColey

If half of deposits go unused, it makes perfect sense to "overpoint" deposits.  RCI makes their money off of exchange fees, and overpointing helps them get more exchanges.  People are more likely to deposit (because they'll get more "points") and more likely to exchange (because they can get multiple exchanges for their "points").


----------



## timeos2

*There are resorts and areas that have 50 weeks of use!*



Carolinian said:


> To give another example that does not include an overbuilt US area, where some owners get their panties in a twist and go ballistic on this forum, let me mention some overpointing in England.  While the high demand times and locations in England have been systematically underpointed, there is a curious group that goes the other way..



It apparently REALLY galls Carolinian that there are areas that have the natural ability to have nearly year round value and repeat visitors without requiring subsidies from poor value week owners and/or artificial life support from trade companies.  And it also infuriates him that the vast majority of US travelers couldn't care less if there are over or under valued times in Europe - at best they may in a lifetime visit once or twice as a special trip unlikely to be the typical 7 day timeshare unit stay.  Also the panty twist must be really tight when he sees that bad weather times in virtually one trick areas like Hilton Head, Ocean City or OBX can't be given away while developers had continued to build ever nicer resorts in warmer areas that almost seem to have no end to the amount of inventory that gets absorbed by high demand.  That trading values reflect what people want to do not what he thinks they should want and where!  

Focusing on things as they were a decade or two ago, bemoaning the alleged "insiders" as THE SOLE SOURCE of any reliable information regarding RCI and the never ending shouts of "overbuilt! overbuilt!"(and may we add "The US aren't coming to the British"), that the explosion of the internet as both a source of information as well as easy rentals had no impact - it was ALL RCI's fault -aren't things we will ever change his view on.  Accept it for what it's worth. Steve is a very knowledgeable and passionate consumer and timeshare advocate.  But realize unless you too want ONLY a beach week no matter how shabby the units, what the weather or cost, European or other limited areas exclusively your experience isn't going to parallel his.  And don't forget that eBay isn't a factor in resales (yeah, right).  

As previously stated the change to open valuations at RCI, or "points lite", may have opened the true "golden age" of timesharing.  Ignoring it or wallowing in what supposedly once was vs learning to fully utilize this great new opportunity is a real waste of time and effort.  Read the opinions, factor them in and then do what's best for YOU and how YOU travel.  I couldn't care less if there were never  a deposit in December from some converted motel on the beach or if a cottage or penthouse is or isn't available in London or Paris - I'm not going there! Likely never will just like the vast majority of US travelers.  Sorry that means we don't care how little value RCI gives to those places and times, but we don't. It's that simple. I worry about and try to maximize what I actually DO want to use and trade. That matters to me.  RCI has had the most to offer and the new system makes it a better value overall IMO.


----------



## vckempson

*The Master Plan!!!*

Deleted.  Oops, Posted in wrong thread.


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


> If half of deposits go unused, it makes perfect sense to "overpoint" deposits.  RCI makes their money off of exchange fees, and overpointing helps them get more exchanges.  People are more likely to deposit (because they'll get more "points") and more likely to exchange (because they can get multiple exchanges for their "points").



For exchangers, however it is like the ''Quantitative Easing'' (running the dollar printing presses) by the treasury and its impact on those holding dollars.  While timeshare points are not currency, the effect is largely the same.  Those holding weeks with real value - the high demand / low supply weeks - see the value of those weeks degraded by RCI's overpointing of weeks for which there is a glut.  And just like those holding US dollars have been looking for other currencies to hold instead, the Swiss franc, Oz dollar, Canadian dollar, etc., holders of high value timeshares are going to be looking for other things to do with them - other exchange companies, using rather than exchanging, renting, selling, etc. - rather than continuing to use an exchange system that cheats them.

And I suspect that middling pointed weeks combining and going after the high value weeks, even going after many that are underpointed where they don't even have to combine, is going to happen a lot more than high value owners going slumming and taking multiple low pointed weeks.  That means the high value weeks will find it harder to get like for like and it will drive them to places like SFX where they CAN get like for like.

But as usual, our perspectives are quite different.  You, as usual, look at it from RCI's perspective.  My perspecitve is that of the individual member and the HOA's.


----------



## Carolinian

Amazing, I try to give detail on an example of overpointing on the other side of the pond, and John answers by defending his own overbuilt area, Orlando.

If I were an Orlando HOA board member like you, I would probably be defending it as passionately as you do.  But everyone in timeshare who is not wearing the Orlando rose colored glasses knows Orlando is overbuilt.  The reason a blue week from anywhere could trade in there is because they have the same supply / demand curve, so it is really a like for like trade.  What you always want to ignore is the supply side.  Yes, lots of people want to go there, but there is just a lot more supply than even those people can fill in the exchange system. You never want to look at the whole picture.

And get real on your ''subsidy'' argument within resorts.  As long as every week pays its proportion of expenses, every week is pulling its own weight. There is NO subsidy.  What you have been proposing is that the high demand weeks subsidize the lower demand weeks by shouldering part of their expenses.  If I were a developer starting a new project, I might actually consider that to help sell the off season weeks, but it is totally unrealistic to expect existing resorts to do that.  The current arrangement is NOT a subsidy situation.  What you propose, however, IS.

As to being a ''golden age of timesharing'', it may well be, for now, until RCI makes another major change, to those in overbuilt areas that have a glut of excess exchange inventory but have nonetheless been overpointed in the new system.  For those with high demand / low supply weeks that have been underpointed, however, it looks more like Fools Gold.  People like the formerly active Tugger who has posted on another timeshare board about his tiger trader that was always taken by an ongoing search before it hit online inventory (a rare event indeed for Orlando) that used to get SW Fla 1-for-1 for 15 tears straight under the old system but now with Points Lite takes 4 (FOUR) weeks to get one in SW Fla.  People like the fellow moderator on that same board whose tiger trader (again a US week) ended up in Points Lite with half the points lite of her other weeks.

I think you are going to be seeing a lot more attitudes with the owners of high demand / llow supply weeks like those of the Brits I described in another post at the welcome meeting at a UK resort I traded into.  That was before Points Lite, but their RCI trading had already been so degraded by RCI's rentals, that none of them were depositing UK weeks to RCI anymore.  Some used their weeks at the resort and sometimes they used DAE, but not RCI.  I looked at the Points Lite awarded to that resort, and they got hosed in that department by RCI, too.

I think you will even see more attitudes like one of the longtime leaders of the organization of European RCI Points members MORPS (Members Of RCI Points) whose user name on the European timeshare site is even a takeoff on the MORPS name.  He has posted that he has already removed four of his weeks from RCI Points and moved them to DAE, and that he is in the process of removing his final week from RCI Points to give it to DAE.  While he has not detailed the spedifics of his reasoning, he does say that he is getting better value from DAE and is pleased with his trades there.  When a leader of a group that has long been beating the drums for RCI Points makes a move like that, it speaks volumes.




timeos2 said:


> It apparently REALLY galls Carolinian that there are areas that have the natural ability to have nearly year round value and repeat visitors without requiring subsidies from poor value week owners and/or artificial life support from trade companies.  And it also infuriates him that the vast majority of US travelers couldn't care less if there are over or under valued times in Europe - at best they may in a lifetime visit once or twice as a special trip unlikely to be the typical 7 day timeshare unit stay.  Also the panty twist must be really tight when he sees that bad weather times in virtually one trick areas like Hilton Head, Ocean City or OBX can't be given away while developers had continued to build ever nicer resorts in warmer areas that almost seem to have no end to the amount of inventory that gets absorbed by high demand.  That trading values reflect what people want to do not what he thinks they should want and where!
> 
> Focusing on things as they were a decade or two ago, bemoaning the alleged "insiders" as THE SOLE SOURCE of any reliable information regarding RCI and the never ending shouts of "overbuilt! overbuilt!"(and may we add "The US aren't coming to the British"), that the explosion of the internet as both a source of information as well as easy rentals had no impact - it was ALL RCI's fault -aren't things we will ever change his view on.  Accept it for what it's worth. Steve is a very knowledgeable and passionate consumer and timeshare advocate.  But realize unless you too want ONLY a beach week no matter how shabby the units, what the weather or cost, European or other limited areas exclusively your experience isn't going to parallel his.  And don't forget that eBay isn't a factor in resales (yeah, right).
> 
> As previously stated the change to open valuations at RCI, or "points lite", may have opened the true "golden age" of timesharing.  Ignoring it or wallowing in what supposedly once was vs learning to fully utilize this great new opportunity is a real waste of time and effort.  Read the opinions, factor them in and then do what's best for YOU and how YOU travel.  I couldn't care less if there were never  a deposit in December from some converted motel on the beach or if a cottage or penthouse is or isn't available in London or Paris - I'm not going there! Likely never will just like the vast majority of US travelers.  Sorry that means we don't care how little value RCI gives to those places and times, but we don't. It's that simple. I worry about and try to maximize what I actually DO want to use and trade. That matters to me.  RCI has had the most to offer and the new system makes it a better value overall IMO.


----------



## miamidan

Hi,

I searched for Bootleg and it appears his last post was in 2006.  While it appears he had some great information in that timeframe does that really matter today?


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> You, as usual, look at it from RCI's perspective.


If you're trying to understand why RCI does what they do, you *have to* look at it from their perspective.  I can't expect them to act in MY best interests.  But if I can understand their perspective and use it to my advantage, I benefit.


----------



## tombo

miamidan said:


> Hi,
> 
> I searched for Bootleg and it appears his last post was in 2006.  While it appears he had some great information in that timeframe does that really matter today?



NO IT DOESN"T MATTER ANYMORE to anyone but Carolinian!!  What you used to be able to exchange for in 2006 with what deposit doesn't matter anymore. Trading bands used to matter in 2006, but don't anymore. Bootleg's 5 year old "inside information" is irrelevant now. For the most part how RCI USED to do things doesn't matter anymore. 

I USED to be able to buy a gallon of gas for 99 cents and it was full service. They USED to check my oil, wash my windshield, check the air in my tires, and check the water level in my radiator. So what. It NOW costs about $4 a gallon and you will NOW have to pump your own gas, check your own tire pressure, oil level, etc .  To moan about how much better it WAS in the good old days is a waste of time. Nostalgic? Yes. Valuable in today's world? Nope.

How to use RCI today, what to own, when to exchange, and how to exchange is dynamic and ever changing. Most of us here on TUG are sharing information to learn how to best use RCI AS IT EXISTS TODAY, not complaing that it isn't how it used to be. It will never be how it used to be again. 

Bootleg does not post here anymore. Bootleg probably does not work for RCI anymore. Heck bootleg might be deceased by now. Puff the magic dragon no longer frolics by the sea. Elvis is dead, Johnny Carson is no longer the host  on the Tonight show. LP records are gone. So are 8 tracks and cassettes and VHS. No reason to moan and complain that johnny was better than Jay, that LP records were much more fun to play than cd's, that Elvis was better than Justin Beiber, or any other things one likes better in the past than how it is done in the present. Unless you have access to time travel, how it use to be is simply history, it is not useful in todays world.

In life and in business change happens. You either learn to adapt to change or you die. Most of us are adapting and enjoying the positive changes RCI has made. Some refuse to accept and adapt, and instead simply complain and wish for "RCI's good old days" that are gone and NEVER coming back.


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


> If you're trying to understand why RCI does what they do, you *have to* look at it from their perspective.  I can't expect them to act in MY best interests.  But if I can understand their perspective and use it to my advantage, I benefit.



I guess you concede the substantive points in my post then, since you do not try to refute them.


----------



## Carolinian

Funny thing. In spite of all your bluster, when I look at RCI's availibility in overbuilt areas like Orlando, that very same glut of excess inventory that was there when Bootleg was posting is still there today.  RCI is still trying to flog off this glut any way they can, at reduced prices.  Gobs of inventory have not magically appeared in the very high demand / very low supply areas. Most of the same resort areas sporatically, rarely or never make it to online inventory.

Yes things change.  RCI's negative changes, particularly their rental program and Points Lite being the last straw has sent me to other exchange companies.  It is sending others, too.  Interestingly, it is also sending one of the longtime leaders of the organization of RCI Points members in Europe, MORPS to switch his weeks out of RCI Points and move them to DAE.  That speaks volumes, even though the only specific reasons he has given for the move was that he has gotten good exchanges from DAE and he got better value there.  One has to make his own changes in responses to the changes that occur.  Your change and my change may not be the same one.




tombo said:


> NO IT DOESN"T MATTER ANYMORE to anyone but Carolinian!!  What you used to be able to exchange for in 2006 with what deposit doesn't matter anymore. Trading bands used to matter in 2006, but don't anymore. Bootleg's 5 year old "inside information" is irrelevant now. For the most part how RCI USED to do things doesn't matter anymore.
> 
> I USED to be able to buy a gallon of gas for 99 cents and it was full service. They USED to check my oil, wash my windshield, check the air in my tires, and check the water level in my radiator. So what. It NOW costs about $4 a gallon and you will NOW have to pump your own gas, check your own tire pressure, oil level, etc .  To moan about how much better it WAS in the good old days is a waste of time. Nostalgic? Yes. Valuable in today's world? Nope.
> 
> How to use RCI today, what to own, when to exchange, and how to exchange is dynamic and ever changing. Most of us here on TUG are sharing information to learn how to best use RCI AS IT EXISTS TODAY, not complaing that it isn't how it used to be. It will never be how it used to be again.
> 
> Bootleg does not post here anymore. Bootleg probably does not work for RCI anymore. Heck bootleg might be deceased by now. Puff the magic dragon no longer frolics by the sea. Elvis is dead, Johnny Carson is no longer the host  on the Tonight show. LP records are gone. So are 8 tracks and cassettes and VHS. No reason to moan and complain that johnny was better than Jay, that LP records were much more fun to play than cd's, that Elvis was better than Justin Beiber, or any other things one likes better in the past than how it is done in the present. Unless you have access to time travel, how it use to be is simply history, it is not useful in todays world.
> 
> In life and in business change happens. You either learn to adapt to change or you die. Most of us are adapting and enjoying the positive changes RCI has made. Some refuse to accept and adapt, and instead simply complain and wish for "RCI's good old days" that are gone and NEVER coming back.


----------



## vckempson

MichaelColey said:


> If you're trying to understand why RCI does what they do, you *have to* look at it from their perspective.  I can't expect them to act in MY best interests.  But if I can understand their perspective and use it to my advantage, I benefit.



Absolutely correct.  Have you ever read the Freakonomics books?  It's all about the unintended consequences of incentives.  Like it or not, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE responds to incentives.  Understanding that is key to making sense of why so many things in this world happen the way they do.  It's certainly not exclusive to RCI.


----------



## Carolinian

Under Crystal deHaan, RCI acting very much in their own interest, while recognizing that the financial health of the timeshare system was, indeed, also very much in their own interest. That approach was highly profitable to RCI.  If members quit and resorts, close, they have less business, however.  Under Cendant / Wyndham they have thought much shorter term, looking to goose short term profits without regard to long term consequences.  What they set in motion is a slow motion train wreck that will ultimately hurt RCI as much as anyone else.




MichaelColey said:


> If you're trying to understand why RCI does what they do, you *have to* look at it from their perspective.  I can't expect them to act in MY best interests.  But if I can understand their perspective and use it to my advantage, I benefit.


----------



## bilfbr245

The 620000 units in RCI system that went unused last year make clear why RCI's new TPU system is a win win for everyone, with the possible exception of one particular person who liked the old days a lot better.  RCI earns no trading fees on all those unused weeks.  So by making our deposits more valuable and these otherwise unused weeks cheap to trade into, everyone wins, except of course that one person.  RCI gets trading fees, we get extra vacations almost free. And in a way that other person wins too, because he gets something new to complain about. 

        I have one unit that I can deposit for 32 TPU's.  Incredibly, I can trade back into this same week for 9 for next year.  It makes no sense at all until you think it through, and then it makes a lot of sense. If I traded back for my same unit, I would then have 23 TPU's for other trades that will be a windfall for me, but will also generate new trading fees for RCI from units that might have otherwise simply been wasted. Plus, because I am getting such great deals, I will be likely to deposit more units.  If RCI were smarter, they would lower trading fees, and the trading volume given these new circumstances would skyrocket.

         This may be a refinement in RCI's thinking about how to deal with those unused weeks.  RCI's first thought was apparently  to  rent some of them.  Not really a bad idea if done right, if the object is to avoid waste.  But RCI is about as poor at customer relations, and particularly communication, as any company you are likely to find.  Lots of glitsy foolishness about how our vacation means to world to them, and other blah blah blah items, but very little open clear communication.  So naturally, they raised a firestorm when they tried to rent out some units.  This new idea makes a lot more sense.  Give the value of the unused weeks back to members, and generate trading fees in the process.

I also feel that this new reality in timesharing continues to challenge the orthodox,  somewhat rigid, "buy to use not to trade" point of view.  One can obtain far more value by trading today in most cases compared to using.  For me, this has offered some relief from escalating MF's since I can usually derive at least two weeks of  use for every MF paid, plus some exchange fees. Still, I would not buy in South Africa (i.e. a place I would be unlikely ever to use), because as a last resort I would find my home resorts acceptable. RCI might (probably will) change its policies again, and then it might be me going on and on about the good old days of timesharing.  But right now, I can usually do much better by trading than by going to my home resorts.


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> I guess you concede the substantive points in my post then, since you do not try to refute them.


I concede all of the *substantive* points in all of your posts. Here they are:



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> .


Seriously, though.

As for your ''Quantitative Easing'' analogy, I don't agree at all. You're comparing apples to bicycles.

As for the changes creating a shortage of high-value weeks, I had the same concerns. I haven't seen it as an issue, though. I've gone some incredible trades and they appear to be even more plentiful than before. Now that things are transparent, there's additional incentive to deposit the best possible weeks, so I think the supply of high quality weeks has gone up even more than the demand.


----------



## "Roger"

While Carolinian speaks fondly of the Crystal DeHaan era, personally I am glad that it is a thing of the past.  Why?


Start by reading Bill Roger's statement as to why he started TUG (found here).  He traded a GC/5 star resort for an absolute dump.  That was in 1993 during the DeHaan years.  He did not consider his experience to be unique.  He notes that he found many timesharers had learned not to trust the Exchange companies to give them a fair trade.  Bill always considered the Reviews section to be the heart of TUG.  He let others start and manage the bulliten board.  Bill's thinking was that with reviews timesharers could protect themselves from the unfair trades that the exchange companies would try to foist on you.  Again, that was in the pre-Cendant era.

My early experience confirms what Bill had to say.  My first trade (GC Hawaii) was into a converted motel that reminded me of a church basement.  Actually, as far as the bathroom went, it was far worse.  All the cauking (applied with triple thickness) was the color of rust (from corrosion seeping onto the cauking).  Taking a shower was icky.  Carefully step over the gunk and shower. This experience was what led me to search out for help and I found TUG.

At the time that I bought, the reputation of timesharing was in the dumpster.  I met some people who had owned and they were embarassed to admit it.  They would sort of lower their head and say that their experiences trading were poor.

The exception proves the rule.  I did meet three owners who were reasonably happy about timesharing.  One was a woman who surprised me by saying that she did own a unit.  When asked why I hadn't known about this before, her response was that she did not want her fellow managers to think she was dumb.  As to why she had a more positive outlook, she attributed to the fact that she owned Fairfield (now Wyndham) Points.  She said that working within what we now call a mini system and the use of points guaranteed that she would be treated more fairly.

The other two exceptions were people who owned Marriotts.  Personally, while I thought that Marriotts were nice, I thought that you could get better deals on top rated timeshares that had much lower maintenence fees than Marriott.  When I asked these two owners (separately) about this, both of them (one grabbing my arm in order to consul me) advised "Well, at least if you own a Marriott and trade for a Marriott, you know that you will get a fair deal."  The clear implication was that neither RCI nor II gave you that guarantee.

Speaking of Marriotts, in my opinion, what began to improve the perception of timesharing at least somewhat was when Marriott, Hyatt, Hilton, and Disney entered the field.  It is not my opinion, but fact that Disney, for one, would never use the word "timeshare" because of the reputation it had acquired during the deHaan years.  

Disney, by the way, belonged to II.  While it irritated some Disney owners who were also TUGGERs, Disney would not allow its owners to trade directly.  They had to trade through a Disney agent.  The reason?  They did not want one of their owners to have a Bill Rogers experience.  They would only allow their owners to trade into resorts that their agents found on an approved list.  They did not trust the Exchange companies to protect their owners' interests.
I could go on, but this should be enough.  I for one do not miss the early years of timesharing.  As far as I am concerned, DeHaan did not create the fairest system yet to have existed.

(Maybe some day I should also post a reminder about how Orlando has historically traded. Not now however.)


----------



## timeos2

"Roger" said:


> [*]Disney, by the way, belonged to II.  While it irritated some Disney owners who were also TUGGERs, Disney would not allow its owners to trade directly.  They had to trade through a Disney agent.  The reason?  They did not want one of their owners to have a Bill Rogers experience.  They would only allow their owners to trade into resorts that their agents found on an approved list.  They did not trust the Exchange companies to protect their owners' interests.



You were doing great until this one. Disney started out in RCI and was, for a relatively short period, lured away by II with one of their infamous "deals" to allow previously disallowed, bogus "fees" (the infamous exchange penalty pioneered by DVC - RCI at the time refused to allow it) charged to non-owners.  The dalliance didn't last long and they are of course back to RCI now but unfortunately the fee lives on and spread.  So at that time RCI stood up for exchangers in refusing to allow that fee but now the gloves are off and money rules all.


----------



## Carolinian

Gee, a lotta gab about one issue that was taken care of by the VEP filters, particularly the downward VEP filters.  And while those were great for those who did not research the resorts they were trading into, since it prevented the things you talk about, it was maddening to those who wanted particular locations, knew the facilities were less than their home resorts, wanted the trades anyway, and found themselves denied the trade because of a downward VEP filter.  That was why I always felt it best to own RID/SC resorts as they tended to have a VEP score that avoided most of the filters, both downward and upward.




"Roger" said:


> While Carolinian speaks fondly of the Crystal DeHaan era, personally I am glad that it is a thing of the past.  Why?
> 
> 
> Start by reading Bill Roger's statement as to why he started TUG (found here).  He traded a GC/5 star resort for an absolute dump.  That was in 1993 during the DeHaan years.  He did not consider his experience to be unique.  He notes that he found many timesharers had learned not to trust the Exchange companies to give them a fair trade.  Bill always considered the Reviews section to be the heart of TUG.  He let others start and manage the bulliten board.  Bill's thinking was that with reviews timesharers could protect themselves from the unfair trades that the exchange companies would try to foist on you.  Again, that was in the pre-Cendant era.
> 
> My early experience confirms what Bill had to say.  My first trade (GC Hawaii) was into a converted motel that reminded me of a church basement.  Actually, as far as the bathroom went, it was far worse.  All the cauking (applied with triple thickness) was the color of rust (from corrosion seeping onto the cauking).  Taking a shower was icky.  Carefully step over the gunk and shower. This experience was what led me to search out for help and I found TUG.
> 
> At the time that I bought, the reputation of timesharing was in the dumpster.  I met some people who had owned and they were embarassed to admit it.  They would sort of lower their head and say that their experiences trading were poor.
> 
> The exception proves the rule.  I did meet three owners who were reasonably happy about timesharing.  One was a woman who surprised me by saying that she did own a unit.  When asked why I hadn't known about this before, her response was that she did not want her fellow managers to think she was dumb.  As to why she had a more positive outlook, she attributed to the fact that she owned Fairfield (now Wyndham) Points.  She said that working within what we now call a mini system and the use of points guaranteed that she would be treated more fairly.
> 
> The other two exceptions were people who owned Marriotts.  Personally, while I thought that Marriotts were nice, I thought that you could get better deals on top rated timeshares that had much lower maintenence fees than Marriott.  When I asked these two owners (separately) about this, both of them (one grabbing my arm in order to consul me) advised "Well, at least if you own a Marriott and trade for a Marriott, you know that you will get a fair deal."  The clear implication was that neither RCI nor II gave you that guarantee.
> 
> Speaking of Marriotts, in my opinion, what began to improve the perception of timesharing at least somewhat was when Marriott, Hyatt, Hilton, and Disney entered the field.  It is not my opinion, but fact that Disney, for one, would never use the word "timeshare" because of the reputation it had acquired during the deHaan years.
> 
> Disney, by the way, belonged to II.  While it irritated some Disney owners who were also TUGGERs, Disney would not allow its owners to trade directly.  They had to trade through a Disney agent.  The reason?  They did not want one of their owners to have a Bill Rogers experience.  They would only allow their owners to trade into resorts that their agents found on an approved list.  They did not trust the Exchange companies to protect their owners' interests.
> I could go on, but this should be enough.  I for one do not miss the early years of timesharing.  As far as I am concerned, DeHaan did not create the fairest system yet to have existed.
> 
> (Maybe some day I should also post a reminder about how Orlando has historically traded. Not now however.)


----------



## Carolinian

Since most of your ownerships are in two of the most overbuilt locations in US timeshare, I am sure you do enjoy the new system and locking in trades up from dime-a-dozen locations with lots of excess supply into the undervalued hard to get times/areas.  Whether the new system is all about where one owns and it is clear to see where your bread is buttered from where you own.




MichaelColey said:


> I concede all of the *substantive* points in all of your posts. Here they are:
> 
> Seriously, though.
> 
> As for your ''Quantitative Easing'' analogy, I don't agree at all. You're comparing apples to bicycles.
> 
> As for the changes creating a shortage of high-value weeks, I had the same concerns. I haven't seen it as an issue, though. I've gone some incredible trades and they appear to be even more plentiful than before. Now that things are transparent, there's additional incentive to deposit the best possible weeks, so I think the supply of high quality weeks has gone up even more than the demand.


----------



## "Roger"

What Carolinian writes off as a tempest in a teapot -- "a lot of gab about one issue" -- is what brought down his favored Crystal deHaan system.  

When Disney, Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott entered into timesharing (oops -- vacation ownership -- don't use that other word because of its prior associations), they recognized that if they were going to succeed, they needed to introduce more fairness than what could be found in the deHaan system.  The natives were restless.  

Three of them chose points (with Disney taking the extra step of not even allowing their own members to trade into the larger system without going through their representatives).  Marriott chose a set of different levels of ownership.  On top of these steps, all of these systems had resorts of fairly uniform quality (which would help ensure fairness within their respective systems).  Those were the decisions of professional marketers.

Meanwhile, II tried to bolster its image by becoming the company of big brand names -- names that you could trust.  RCI tried a series of stop gap measures (VEP ratings, more and tighter levels of trade restrictions, etc.) but eventually settled on points.  SFX branded itself as the company that would give the owners of prime weeks fair trades by refusing to deal with anything but prime weeks.

No, the Crystal deHaan era is not going to come back.  It stunk.  Contrary to what Carolinian suggests, it was not a business model that could stand the test of time.  Timesharing had the most unsavory reputation when it existed  -- yes, even worse than now.


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> Since most of your ownerships are in two of the most overbuilt locations in US timeshare, I am sure you do enjoy the new system and locking in trades up from dime-a-dozen locations with lots of excess supply into the undervalued hard to get times/areas.  Whether the new system is all about where one owns and it is clear to see where your bread is buttered from where you own.



Why must you attack people for owning what they own, or taking advantage of the opportunities to get good TPU values?  We didn't set up the system.  We're only trying to get the most value of it we can.  Why is that so horrendously evil to you?


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> Since most of your ownerships are in two of the most overbuilt locations in US timeshare, I am sure you do enjoy the new system and locking in trades up from dime-a-dozen locations with lots of excess supply into the undervalued hard to get times/areas. Whether the new system is all about where one owns and it is clear to see where your bread is buttered from where you own.


I used the often-touted advice of owning where you would want to go.  Six of my seven timeshares are in places where I go regularly.  My exchanges have largely been back into the areas where I own, except depositing prime weeks and exchanging into off-season weeks.

With RCI, where you own is one factor, but WHICH WEEK YOU DEPOSIT makes a much bigger difference.


----------



## PeelBoy

I own a two bedroom KO at Plantation Resort of Myrtle Beach, a medicore resort at best.

A spilt deposit of two - a one bedroom and a hotel unit for week 26 in 2012. Guess what!!!  The TPUs scored are 50 and 39, i.e. a total of 89 for a MF of $604 per year.

Did I just win the bingo???


----------



## ampaholic

Week 26 pretty much always wins the bingo this week


----------



## lolibeachgirl

Peelboy,
I own at Plantation too and got 25 and 19 for splitting a loft lockoff for easter week 2012...was pretty happy with that as I don't own summer red.

originally got lower, but they did an adjustment up a couple weeks after my deposit..

what's a KO?


----------



## Carolinian

PeelBoy said:


> I own a two bedroom KO at Plantation Resort of Myrtle Beach, a medicore resort at best.
> 
> A spilt deposit of two - a one bedroom and a hotel unit for week 26 in 2012. Guess what!!!  The TPUs scored are 50 and 39, i.e. a total of 89 for a MF of $604 per year.
> 
> Did I just win the bingo???



That resort is a ''drive to the beach'' resort, too, is it not?

Yeah, I think you won the bingo!


----------



## Carolinian

vckempson said:


> Why must you attack people for owning what they own, or taking advantage of the opportunities to get good TPU values?  We didn't set up the system.  We're only trying to get the most value of it we can.  Why is that so horrendously evil to you?



Of course it is not evil.  It is just a factor of why their opinions are what they are and is only pointed out for that reason.


----------



## Carolinian

Nothing brought ''down'' the Crystal deHaan system.  It was highly profitable and protected all interests, the exchange company, the HOA's and the members.  What brought change was the greed of Cendant to goose short term profits.

You are also very selective in your history.

Actually, the very first timeshare developer, Hapimag of Switzerland, which invented timeshare, has been a points system from the very beginning.  That is not some ''new improvement''.  That is how timeshare started out.  A rival French developer later invented the weeks ownership concept, and that is what the market preferred and what came to dominate the industry for that reason. It is also what crossed the Atlantic.  The original points system at Hapimag is still around, still points, and now has about 50 resorts.

Then came the overlay points systems, on which RCI Points is based.  They originated in South Africa, conceived by a former tallyman (or loan shark as we call them) named Andrew Davies.  Several overlay points systems were set up there, and then spread to Europe, and eventually led to RCI Points.  The basic appeal of an overlay points system is that it allows a developer or some third party to sell a timesharer what they already own.  There is no product cost because they are selling air. The timesharer already owns the timeshare itself.  Thats why developers like Sunterra (bankrupt) and Fairfield picked it up.




"Roger" said:


> What Carolinian writes off as a tempest in a teapot -- "a lot of gab about one issue" -- is what brought down his favored Crystal deHaan system.
> 
> When Disney, Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott entered into timesharing (oops -- vacation ownership -- don't use that other word because of its prior associations), they recognized that if they were going to succeed, they needed to introduce more fairness than what could be found in the deHaan system.  The natives were restless.
> 
> Three of them chose points (with Disney taking the extra step of not even allowing their own members to trade into the larger system without going through their representatives).  Marriott chose a set of different levels of ownership.  On top of these steps, all of these systems had resorts of fairly uniform quality (which would help ensure fairness within their respective systems).  Those were the decisions of professional marketers.
> 
> Meanwhile, II tried to bolster its image by becoming the company of big brand names -- names that you could trust.  RCI tried a series of stop gap measures (VEP ratings, more and tighter levels of trade restrictions, etc.) but eventually settled on points.  SFX branded itself as the company that would give the owners of prime weeks fair trades by refusing to deal with anything but prime weeks.
> 
> No, the Crystal deHaan era is not going to come back.  It stunk.  Contrary to what Carolinian suggests, it was not a business model that could stand the test of time.  Timesharing had the most unsavory reputation when it existed  -- yes, even worse than now.


----------



## bellesgirl

MichaelColey said:


> I used the often-touted advice of owning where you would want to go.  Six of my seven timeshares are in places where I go regularly.  My exchanges have largely been back into the areas where I own, except depositing prime weeks and exchanging into off-season weeks.
> 
> With RCI, where you own is one factor, but WHICH WEEK YOU DEPOSIT makes a much bigger difference.



Very true.  I own an Orlando week 51.  When that includes Xmas, it gets 55-56 TPU.  When it falls before Xmas (like this year) it gets 20!  Same resort; same unit.

lolibeachgirl: "what's a KO?"  I think a KO is a fat-fingered LO (Lock off).


----------



## rickandcindy23

> lolibeachgirl: "what's a KO?" I think a KO is a fat-fingered LO (Lock off).


I think so! :rofl: 

Bragging ain't good on that week, but that's my opinion.


----------



## MichaelColey

bellesgirl said:


> Very true. I own an Orlando week 51. When that includes Xmas, it gets 55-56 TPU. When it falls before Xmas (like this year) it gets 20! Same resort; same unit.


Week 52 may be better for that reason.  It seems to always get the higher value, since it'll either encompass Christmas or New Year.  Week 51 and 26 and 27 can vary.

If it's a timeshare that isn't in RCI Points, you might get more value out of it when it's "off" a week by doing PFD.


----------



## Carolinian

A win-win for everyone?  Take off your rose colored glasses!

When RCI imposed Points Lite on us, they changed lots of value relationships for lots of members.  Some, like you, came out ahead, and are happy as clams.  Others got their values whacked and for them it is a loss, and there's no way around that.  

How many are in each group?  A poll on another site gives a good indication.  Half reported that they could still get the weeks they could trade for in the old system with one or less deposits.  Those people came out at least even, and sometimes ahead.  The other half reported that it now takes them points lite from MORE than one week to get the weeks they used to get one for one.  Those people have lost in the Brave New World of RCI.  And when you consider that one group that has traditionally been very underrepresented on timeshare internet boards is the owners of off season weeks and this group has been spanked more than most by RCI in Points Lite, it is likely that there are more losers than winners.

Owners in overbuilt areas seem to have done the best in this new system, and they seem to be mostly the ones who are crowing about it here.

When RCI gives you 32 points lite for your week that in reality is only worth 9, then they are allowing you to trade up substantially which you obviously like, but it means some other member(s) are likely not to get like for like trades.  That distorts the system and is certainly not a win-win either for the underpointed high demand / low supply weeks or anyone with a genuinely good week who expects to trade like for like. 




bilfbr245 said:


> The 620000 units in RCI system that went unused last year make clear why RCI's new TPU system is a win win for everyone, with the possible exception of one particular person who liked the old days a lot better.  RCI earns no trading fees on all those unused weeks.  So by making our deposits more valuable and these otherwise unused weeks cheap to trade into, everyone wins, except of course that one person.  RCI gets trading fees, we get extra vacations almost free. And in a way that other person wins too, because he gets something new to complain about.
> 
> I have one unit that I can deposit for 32 TPU's.  Incredibly, I can trade back into this same week for 9 for next year.  It makes no sense at all until you think it through, and then it makes a lot of sense. If I traded back for my same unit, I would then have 23 TPU's for other trades that will be a windfall for me, but will also generate new trading fees for RCI from units that might have otherwise simply been wasted. Plus, because I am getting such great deals, I will be likely to deposit more units.  If RCI were smarter, they would lower trading fees, and the trading volume given these new circumstances would skyrocket.
> 
> This may be a refinement in RCI's thinking about how to deal with those unused weeks.  RCI's first thought was apparently  to  rent some of them.  Not really a bad idea if done right, if the object is to avoid waste.  But RCI is about as poor at customer relations, and particularly communication, as any company you are likely to find.  Lots of glitsy foolishness about how our vacation means to world to them, and other blah blah blah items, but very little open clear communication.  So naturally, they raised a firestorm when they tried to rent out some units.  This new idea makes a lot more sense.  Give the value of the unused weeks back to members, and generate trading fees in the process.
> 
> I also feel that this new reality in timesharing continues to challenge the orthodox,  somewhat rigid, "buy to use not to trade" point of view.  One can obtain far more value by trading today in most cases compared to using.  For me, this has offered some relief from escalating MF's since I can usually derive at least two weeks of  use for every MF paid, plus some exchange fees. Still, I would not buy in South Africa (i.e. a place I would be unlikely ever to use), because as a last resort I would find my home resorts acceptable. RCI might (probably will) change its policies again, and then it might be me going on and on about the good old days of timesharing.  But right now, I can usually do much better by trading than by going to my home resorts.


----------



## Laurie

Carolinian said:


> A poll on another site gives a good indication.  Half reported that they could still get the weeks they could trade for in the old system with one or less deposits.  Those people came out at least even, and sometimes ahead.  The other half reported that it now takes them points lite from MORE than one week to get the weeks they used to get one for one.  Those people have lost in the Brave New World of RCI.  And when you consider that one group that has traditionally been very underrepresented on timeshare internet boards is the owners of off season weeks and this group has been spanked more than most by RCI in Points Lite, *it is likely that there are more winners than losers*.


Did you mean to say the opposite?

In any case, that's a skewed poll, as I understand that poll's rules.

I believe if you own 5 resorts, and 4 give you back more, and 1 less, you're supposed to check the box that says you cannot still get the weeks you could trade for under the old system.

So I didn't take the poll. 

There's one instance where looking back, I couldn't get the same trade anymore with the same deposit. But there are several where I would have come out ahead, with change. 

So I could have gotten the same trade plus more, adding up various deposits = trades during that period.

Therefore I wouldn't gather anything from that specific poll. A better question would be overall, are you getting back more or fewer trades, taking into account all of your history and all of your ownerships.


----------



## Carolinian

Thank you and I did correct it.

The key fact is that some weeks are losing assigned value and some gaining assigned value.  For some owners with multiple weeks, it will indeed be a mixed bag.  But when you figure in all the 45-day window losers, who don't get involved much in the online boards (if they did they would probably get out of owning blue weeks!) then it is almost certainly going to tilt to more losers.

Some are dramatic losers.  The poster of that poll for example personally has been trading for 15 years to the same area one-for-one with the same deposit.  He looks at availibility there daily and prints off the results, so he has the data at hand.  His deposit is a prime red 2BR GC that is snapped up by ongoing searches rather than sitting in the bank, so it has a good supply / demand curve.  Yet under Points Lite, it now takes him FOUR (4) of those weeks to get one that he has been getting as an even trade.

My own summer UK weeks have been whacked severely by RCI, and they always get taken immediately with any exchange company, never hitting the online availibility.  The UK generally, and summer in particular have a very good supply demand curve.  Yet they will not trade in Points Lite for most of what they have traded for in the past.  Since RCI wants to play like that, I haven't taken my marbles elsewhere (DAE and SFX).





Laurie said:


> Did you mean to say the opposite?
> 
> In any case, that's a skewed poll, as I understand that poll's rules.
> 
> I believe if you own 5 resorts, and 4 give you back more, and 1 less, you're supposed to check the box that says you cannot still get the weeks you could trade for under the old system.
> 
> So I didn't take the poll.
> 
> There's one instance where looking back, I couldn't get the same trade anymore with the same deposit. But there are several where I would have come out ahead, with change.
> 
> So I could have gotten the same trade plus more, adding up various deposits = trades during that period.
> 
> Therefore I wouldn't gather anything from that specific poll. A better question would be overall, are you getting back more or fewer trades, taking into account all of your history and all of your ownerships.


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> Some are dramatic losers.  The poster of that poll for example personally has been trading for 15 years to the same area one-for-one with the same deposit.  He looks at availibility there daily and prints off the results, so he has the data at hand.  His deposit is a prime red 2BR GC that is snapped up by ongoing searches rather than sitting in the bank, so it has a good supply / demand curve.  Yet under Points Lite, it now takes him FOUR (4) of those weeks to get one that he has been getting as an even trade.
> .



In life there are always some dramatic losers when change comes along.  At least they think they are losers.  *Often times, these losers were just getting something they didn't deserve all along. * 

Case in point....

I live in an upscale community in NJ.  I guess everything is upscale comparing our prices to most of the US.  The town consists of an older lake community and the remainder which are predominently newer and larger homes.  My parents lived on the lake, and me, well we went to newer and bigger outside the lake.  For the first 15 or so years here my taxes were 60% higher than my parents.  Suddenly after one of our tax re-evaluations, their taxes went up about 50%, and mine didn't change.  Uh-Oh, big loser with a capital L for them.  They felt cheated and abused.  Why should they suffer covering our ever higher budget and not us.  

Dig a little further and we see something else at work.   Ever since we built our house  (the nice, big, newer one) both our homes could get about the same sales price if sold.  They didn't get cheated during the re-evaluation.  No, they'd just been getting a free ride for about 20 years, along with every other older lake front home, and now it was getting fixed.  That didn't matter to them.  For the remaining 5 years they were there before retiring south, they had the perception that they'd been cheated;  the system was crooked.  

*Our perception of fairness is often based on what we compare it to.*  If you compare it to how good you had it before, well that's just not a reasonable yardstick in my opinion.  Without knowing the specifics of the referenced poster's previous trades that disappeared, along with what week he owns... well that's just completely meaningless to absolutely everyone here.   Without the details of their ownership and trades, before and after, it suggests nothing other than something changed.  *Maybe they they were just getting something they didn't deserve for all those years,* sort of like my South African weeks for all those years.


----------



## rickandcindy23

vckempson said:


> *Our perception of fairness is often based on what we compare it to.*  If you compare it to how good you had it before, well that's just not a reasonable yardstick in my opinion.  Without knowing the specifics of what the referenced poster used to get and couldn't, with what week it owns... well that's just completely meaningless to absolutely everyone here.   Without the details of their ownership and trades, before and after, it suggests nothing other than something changed.  *Maybe they they were just getting something they didn't deserve for all those years,* sort of like my South African weeks for all those years.



Cullen, you make good points, but when things change with RCI, and those changes affect you, then you will indeed be singing a different tune.  

Our summer Colorado weeks were stellar traders in RCI for years, then suddenly, after enhancements on 5/31/2009, our trading power went downhill.  I could no longer see 700 Hawaii weeks, I could only see 150 or so, and I saw none of the DVC weeks, either, when I saw all of them before.  RCI denied the changes to our trading power, and I talked to an assistant to the CEO, who finally confirmed for a fact, our trading power did change.  It wasn't a little change; it was a huge change.  As a person who posted lots of sightings on TUG before those enhancements, I could no longer see much, and that had me outraged and sickened.   

When RCI made changes in November of 2010, our trading power went back up again for those weeks, to the same level we had before 5/31/2009.  I don't know why, but I can always look back and say to myself that RCI mistakenly downgraded us for a while.  Fact is, if there was a science to it, our trading power wouldn't be up and down like that.  It was a huge difference, believe me.  Now we are back where we were, but I am always waiting for changes, always ready to be back where we once were.  

I think we always have to be cautious with RCI and never assume what is valuable today will show that same value tomorrow. 

North Carolina mountain resorts are still getting the shaft.  SC inland is getting huge points, while Hilton Head suffers low TPU's.  Where is the sense in that?  I don't think there is any science to it, so look for changes.


----------



## vckempson

rickandcindy23 said:


> Cullen, you make good points, but when things change with RCI, and those changes affect you, then you will indeed be singing a different tune.
> .



I am definitely the poster boy for being on the loser side of RCI changes.  My 3 South African weeks, my only weeks, went to hell in a hand basket, getting 9 TPU's each.  I do in fact eat my own cooking, so to speak. 

According to Carolinian, they should still be tiger traders.  I don't really care.  They aren't and that's all that matters.  Stuff happens in life, we can either complain about it or move on.  I moved on.




> I think we always have to be cautious with RCI and never assume what is valuable today will show that same value tomorrow.



You're absolutely correct and I've seen that first hand.   I'd never assume that things will stay as they are now, but I've only got the here and now with which to make decisions.  I'd rather deal with the factual TPU information at hand, than take a guess at what might work well 5 years from now.  




> North Carolina mountain resorts are still getting the shaft. SC inland is getting huge points, while Hilton Head suffers low TPU's. Where is the sense in that?



Not sure what you mean by SC inland?  For what it's worth, I'm from South Carolina, and have an intimate knowledge of Hilton Head, Myrtle Beach, OBX and the NC mountains.   There are those that love HH, OBX or the mountains... but the mass of vacationers east of the mississipi coming to the Carolinas will hit Myrtle Beach.  Many of the local Carolinians trend toward one of the others, for that very reason.  The relative TPU numbers that I see are exactly in line with what I'd expect.  Unless you owned a place for the same week at those multiple locations, previous perceptions of relative trading strength are mostly conjecture.


----------



## timeos2

*Overall a very positive change*

An overall very important fact that should not be overlooked here is that what some thought would be a mass exodus of members from RCI - especially those of lesser value, often highly seasonal times, simply has not occurred. In fact it seems in many ways to be the opposite as now knowing that their ownerships carry very low TPU's they are taking steps to increase or at least utilize what value they do have using the tools provided.  Exactly what should happen.    It appears that whether by design or forced accident RCI stumbled into a much more user friendly & understandable system by revealing trade power/value.  So far it has proven to be far more positive overall than negative for the vast majority of users/members.  Glad to see it.


----------



## maleko121

Newbie here:   How can I as a non RCI member find out how many TPU I would get from any given  resort/week before I buy one on ebay or elsewhere (pretty well the only place I know of)?

Corollary question, finding how many of those TPUs would be needed for  various trades?

Any help in these is greatly appreciated.  I have wondered about week 51 vs 52 also 26 vs 27, thanks for that Michael.

A further question regarding purchasing a week, can I still use it for points lite or only for points or only for weeks or are all of the above possible?

Thanks for this post, very helpful and reassuring.


----------



## "Roger"

rickandcindy23 said:


> ...North Carolina mountain resorts are still getting the shaft....


Oh Cindy, Cindy, Cindy. Don't you know how many times that NC mountain resorts were held up as examples of overpointed resorts.  You are treading on such dangerous, dangerous ground.


----------



## vckempson

maleko121 said:


> Newbie here:   How can I as a non RCI member find out how many TPU I would get from any given  resort/week before I buy one on ebay or elsewhere (pretty well the only place I know of)?
> .



Do your homework here and you'll probably pick up quite a bit from the conversation about what's likely to get good TPU values.  If you then just post  a request to check out a specific resort and week, I'm sure someone here will look it up for you.


----------



## bnoble

> but when things change with RCI, and those changes affect you, then you will indeed be singing a different tune.


That's exactly Cullen's point.  There was an interesting article dealing with ust these sorts of things recently (hint: you are guilty of #3).

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/05/12/136245790/3-ways-the-brain-betrays-us


----------



## ampaholic

maleko121 said:


> Newbie here:   How can I as a non RCI member find out how many TPU I would get from any given  resort/week before I buy one on ebay or elsewhere (pretty well the only place I know of)?
> 
> Corollary question, finding how many of those TPUs would be needed for  various trades?
> 
> Any help in these is greatly appreciated.  I have wondered about week 51 vs 52 also 26 vs 27, thanks for that Michael.
> 
> A further question regarding purchasing a week, can I still use it for points lite or only for points or only for weeks or are all of the above possible?
> 
> Thanks for this post, very helpful and reassuring.



While you can't access the RCI TPU calculator as a non member you can access the II resort directory at: http://www.intervalworld.com/web/cs?a=1500 - many of the resorts have dual affiliation and you can check the "travel demand index" to see which weeks are most in demand.

A good rule of thumb is that the most "in demand" weeks will pull the most TPU's. This might get you in the ballpark on many resorts.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Owning some of those SC inland resorts, I think it's a mile or so from Myrtle Beach, I am currently reaping the rewards of those over-valued weeks.  I will not be complaining much, if RCI changes it, simply because I cannot believe my temporary luck. :rofl: 

Hilton Head seems to be almost all Marriotts, and RCI doesn't have those, so I don't understand the low trading value.  

I guess Myrtle Beach vs. Hilton Head for locals is like Summit County vs. Grand County in Colorado for Denverites.


----------



## Carolinian

In timeshare exchanging, what a timeshare owner deserves is based on supply and demand.  On that basis, your South African weeks deserved good trading power a lot more than your new acquisition in one of the most overbuilt places in timeshare.  Heck the 183 resorts in South Africa put together typically have about the same availiblity as your new resort does ALL BY ITSELF.

And the resort the poster had been deposited always got taken immediately by ongoing requests (or a request from the Rental Pool), meaning it has had an excellent supply / demand curve, unlike say those Orlando resorts which constantly have a glut of excess inventory sitting online, so the facts indicate that he was NOT getting something he did not deserve.




vckempson said:


> In life there are always some dramatic losers when change comes along.  At least they think they are losers.  *Often times, these losers were just getting something they didn't deserve all along. *
> 
> Case in point....
> 
> I live in an upscale community in NJ.  I guess everything is upscale comparing our prices to most of the US.  The town consists of an older lake community and the remainder which are predominently newer and larger homes.  My parents lived on the lake, and me, well we went to newer and bigger outside the lake.  For the first 15 or so years here my taxes were 60% higher than my parents.  Suddenly after one of our tax re-evaluations, their taxes went up about 50%, and mine didn't change.  Uh-Oh, big loser with a capital L for them.  They felt cheated and abused.  Why should they suffer covering our ever higher budget and not us.
> 
> Dig a little further and we see something else at work.   Ever since we built our house  (the nice, big, newer one) both our homes could get about the same sales price if sold.  They didn't get cheated during the re-evaluation.  No, they'd just been getting a free ride for about 20 years, along with every other older lake front home, and now it was getting fixed.  That didn't matter to them.  For the remaining 5 years they were there before retiring south, they had the perception that they'd been cheated;  the system was crooked.
> 
> *Our perception of fairness is often based on what we compare it to.*  If you compare it to how good you had it before, well that's just not a reasonable yardstick in my opinion.  Without knowing the specifics of the referenced poster's previous trades that disappeared, along with what week he owns... well that's just completely meaningless to absolutely everyone here.   Without the details of their ownership and trades, before and after, it suggests nothing other than something changed.  *Maybe they they were just getting something they didn't deserve for all those years,* sort of like my South African weeks for all those years.


----------



## Carolinian

ampaholic said:


> While you can't access the RCI TPU calculator as a non member you can access the II resort directory at: http://www.intervalworld.com/web/cs?a=1500 - many of the resorts have dual affiliation and you can check the "travel demand index" to see which weeks are most in demand.
> 
> A good rule of thumb is that the most "in demand" weeks will pull the most TPU's. This might get you in the ballpark on many resorts.



What that logic probably does apply with II, it does not with RCI.  Some of the most hard to trade into places have equal of less RCI points lite (TPU) than some of the most overbuilt areas with lots of excess inventory.  That is a big part of the problem with the new system.


----------



## Carolinian

timeos2 said:


> An overall very important fact that should not be overlooked here is that what some thought would be a mass exodus of members from RCI - especially those of lesser value, often highly seasonal times, simply has not occurred. In fact it seems in many ways to be the opposite as now knowing that their ownerships carry very low TPU's they are taking steps to increase or at least utilize what value they do have using the tools provided.  Exactly what should happen.    It appears that whether by design or forced accident RCI stumbled into a much more user friendly & understandable system by revealing trade power/value.  So far it has proven to be far more positive overall than negative for the vast majority of users/members.  Glad to see it.



Counting your chickens before they hatch, I see.  Knowing the usual cycle of non-paying members, we are not yet to the point of where we would start seeing deedbacks. Depending on resort, that will be Fall to Winter, at least in our area.  I will particularly be watching the deed transfers in the township of the resort with the manager who described to me all the calls of unhappy members wanting out that she got right after word of Points Lite got out.

I also found interesting an email survey I got from RCI a few weeks ago, asking why I had not used their services for exchange in a while.  Because of all the questions geared around their ''enhancements'' it certainly made it appear from the design of the survey that this was what they were looking at in people not using their system like they used to.  If so, they hit the nail on the head with me!


----------



## Carolinian

vckempson said:


> Not sure what you mean by SC inland?  For what it's worth, I'm from South Carolina, and have an intimate knowledge of Hilton Head, Myrtle Beach, OBX and the NC mountains.   There are those that love HH, OBX or the mountains... but the mass of vacationers east of the mississipi coming to the Carolinas will hit Myrtle Beach.  Many of the local Carolinians trend toward one of the others, for that very reason.  The relative TPU numbers that I see are exactly in line with what I'd expect.  Unless you owned a place for the same week at those multiple locations, previous perceptions of relative trading strength are mostly conjecture.



Your perceptions are wrong about who goes where.  Most North Carolinians go to Myrtle Beach.  The largest group of visitors to the OBX come from Virginia, and other states in both the mid-west and northeast are also well represented.  From our ownership rolls at the resort where I was on the board, we had many more Virginians than North Carolinians as owners, and that is true of most resorts I am familiar with on the OBX.


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> In timeshare exchanging, what a timeshare owner deserves is based on supply and demand.  On that basis, your South African weeks deserved good trading power a lot more than your new acquisition in one of the most overbuilt places in timeshare. .



Hmm?     RCI clearly disagrees.  Not sure why we keep going over this, but deposit values in RCI are not even intended to be based soley on Supply and Demand.  

*The stated factors that go into valuing deposits include

Utilization
Supply
Demand
*I know you want it differently, but it just does not work that way.   Your assertion that SA "deserves" higher deposit values because of better supply/demand factors is just factually incorrect and misses the point that utilization is an added input into the formula.  

Since we don't know the weighting of these three values, utilization might even be a bigger inut than supply and demand.   And don't suggest that this some how undermines the integrity of the system.  That would be ridiculous.  These aren't immutable laws of nature.  RCI can set up or change the formula to be anything they want it to be.


----------



## vckempson

Oops, Double post


----------



## vckempson

Carolinian said:


> Your perceptions are wrong about who goes where.  Most North Carolinians go to Myrtle Beach.  The largest group of visitors to the OBX come from Virginia, and other states in both the mid-west and northeast are also well represented.  From our ownership rolls at the resort where I was on the board, we had many more Virginians than North Carolinians as owners, and that is true of most resorts I am familiar with on the OBX.



Maybe so.  If you are correct, then everyone seems to want to head further south than where they live.  I'd bet my last dollar, though, that out of OBX, MB, HH, or the mountains, more people visit MB than the others, maybe even more than the other 3 combined.


----------



## Carolinian

vckempson said:


> Maybe so.  If you are correct, then everyone seems to want to head further south than where they live.  I'd bet my last dollar, though, that out of OBX, MB, HH, or the mountains, more people visit MB than the others, maybe even more than the other 3 combined.



I do think you are correct about people wanting to go farther south than they live.  But for North Carolinians, it is also about what is easier to travel to. If you draw a line from east of Raleigh (probably about Wilson, NC) north to the Virginia line and then south east to New Bern, anything west or south of that line will have quicker and easier travel to MB over the OBX, and that is the overwhelming majority of the state.  OTH, Virginia has a privately owned toll road to help funnel tourists to the OBX more quickly from points north.

You can also tell it from the newspapers being sold on the OBX.  The Norfolk newspaper is far easier to find than the Raleigh newspaper, and then there are quite a few boxes for Richmond, and Washington, DC newspapers, too, and even some for the New York Times.

And I would agree that the Grand Strand has more tourist accomodation and more visitors than any of the other areas, and I would include another in that which you haven't mentioned, Virginia Beach.


----------



## Carolinian

I know that your interpretation is that ''utilization'' includes having a glut of excess inventory, even if they have to try to flog it off at reduced prices to keep it from staying on the shelf, but if they are doing what you say, then that indeed is itself a huge flaw in the system.

When they are giving out 32 points lite to members like Bill for weeks really worth the 9 points lite that they charge others, they are prostituting the system.



vckempson said:


> Hmm?     RCI clearly disagrees.  Not sure why we keep going over this, but deposit values in RCI are not even intended to be based soley on Supply and Demand.
> 
> *The stated factors that go into valuing deposits include
> 
> Utilization
> Supply
> Demand
> *I know you want it differently, but it just does not work that way.   Your assertion that SA "deserves" higher deposit values because of better supply/demand factors is just factually incorrect and misses the point that utilization is an added input into the formula.
> 
> Since we don't know the weighting of these three values, utilization might even be a bigger inut than supply and demand.   And don't suggest that this some how undermines the integrity of the system.  That would be ridiculous.  These aren't immutable laws of nature.  RCI can set up or change the formula to be anything they want it to be.


----------



## Carolinian

vckempson said:


> I am definitely the poster boy for being on the loser side of RCI changes.  My 3 South African weeks, my only weeks, went to hell in a hand basket, getting 9 TPU's each.  I do in fact eat my own cooking, so to speak.
> 
> According to Carolinian, they should still be tiger traders.  I don't really care.  They aren't and that's all that matters.  Stuff happens in life, we can either complain about it or move on.  I moved on.



Your resort should probably not be in the top ranks in SA, but it should be more than 9 points lite, and should be at least a middling trader.  You have the misfortune to own in one of the regions with a sudden and arbitrary devaluation imposed by RCI at the same time it imposed Points Lite.

Having been burned once by RCI moving the goal posts, it is amazing to see that you have the drive to put your hand back on that hot stove another time.

My concept of moving on is to start cooking on a different stove - DAE and SFX, so far, and I will probably add UKRE since they give 2-for-1 credits for both of my summer UK weeks since they both fall during the UK school holidays.


----------



## ampaholic

Carolinian said:


> -snip-
> 
> My concept of moving on is to start cooking on a different stove - DAE and SFX, so far, and I will probably add UKRE since they give 2-for-1 credits for both of my summer UK weeks since they both fall during the UK school holidays.



Wait, wait, wait - isn't giving 2-for-1 credits *a lot* like giving 18 TPU for a deposit that you only charge 9 for?

So you would actually* like* the RCI manipulation if it benefited _*you*_?

:hysterical: :rofl: :hysterical:


----------



## miamidan

Carolinian said:


> Thank you and I did correct it.
> 
> The key fact is that some weeks are losing assigned value and some gaining assigned value.  For some owners with multiple weeks, it will indeed be a mixed bag.  But when you figure in all the 45-day window losers, who don't get involved much in the online boards (if they did they would probably get out of owning blue weeks!) then it is almost certainly going to tilt to more losers.
> 
> Some are dramatic losers.  The poster of that poll for example personally has been trading for 15 years to the same area one-for-one with the same deposit.  He looks at availibility there daily and prints off the results, so he has the data at hand.  His deposit is a prime red 2BR GC that is snapped up by ongoing searches rather than sitting in the bank, so it has a good supply / demand curve.  Yet under Points Lite, it now takes him FOUR (4) of those weeks to get one that he has been getting as an even trade.
> 
> My own summer UK weeks have been whacked severely by RCI, and they always get taken immediately with any exchange company, never hitting the online availibility.  The UK generally, and summer in particular have a very good supply demand curve.  Yet they will not trade in Points Lite for most of what they have traded for in the past.  Since RCI wants to play like that, I haven't taken my marbles elsewhere (DAE and SFX).



Carolinian I don't recall the poster over yonder ever saying where his "prime red" week was.  You define "prime red" as places where the demand far outweights supply and an excellent physical location.  Can we assume he is beach-front at primetime?


----------



## Carolinian

Well, you can't use the 2 for 1 credits to trade back into the school holiday weeks, but heck, I'd rather have two May or June weeks than one school holiday week.  It just means that school holiday weeks are at the top of the food chain as to supply and demand.  To get the two weeks, you have to accept something a bit farther down the food chain.  But since I don't have kids in school, I'd rather go in May or June anyway.

It's a lot like what RCI used to do for its European members before it morphed into Rents Condos Instead.  Since there were many more Ameican members wanting to trade into Europe than the reverse, RCI offered its European members 2 for 1 credits on their European deposits if they would take their exchange in North America instead of Europe.




ampaholic said:


> Wait, wait, wait - isn't giving 2-for-1 credits *a lot* like giving 18 TPU for a deposit that you only charge 9 for?
> 
> So you would actually* like* the RCI manipulation if it benefited _*you*_?
> 
> :hysterical: :rofl: :hysterical:


----------



## Carolinian

miamidan said:


> Carolinian I don't recall the poster over yonder ever saying where his "prime red" week was.  You define "prime red" as places where the demand far outweights supply and an excellent physical location.  Can we assume he is beach-front at primetime?



He actually uses terms like Slimy Slough and Mugwump Swamp as code names specifically to avoid RCI taking any action relative to his posts.  The one he is talking about is a prime US ski week.


----------



## miamidan

so these are ski-in ski out prime weeks and they can't trade for florida?

is he asking for equivalent unit sizes?


----------



## Carolinian

miamidan said:


> so these are ski-in ski out prime weeks and they can't trade for florida?
> 
> is he asking for equivalent unit sizes?



Where he trades to is not generic ''Florida'' but to SW Florida.  That is a very, very different supply / demand curve than, say, Orlando.


----------



## miamidan

Carolinian said:


> Thank you and I did correct it.
> 
> The key fact is that some weeks are losing assigned value and some gaining assigned value.  For some owners with multiple weeks, it will indeed be a mixed bag.  But when you figure in all the 45-day window losers, who don't get involved much in the online boards (if they did they would probably get out of owning blue weeks!) then it is almost certainly going to tilt to more losers.
> 
> Some are dramatic losers.  The poster of that poll for example personally has been trading for 15 years to the same area one-for-one with the same deposit.  He looks at availibility there daily and prints off the results, so he has the data at hand.  His deposit is a prime red 2BR GC that is snapped up by ongoing searches rather than sitting in the bank, so it has a good supply / demand curve.  Yet under Points Lite, it now takes him FOUR (4) of those weeks to get one that he has been getting as an even trade.
> 
> My own summer UK weeks have been whacked severely by RCI, and they always get taken immediately with any exchange company, never hitting the online availibility.  The UK generally, and summer in particular have a very good supply demand curve.  Yet they will not trade in Points Lite for most of what they have traded for in the past.  Since RCI wants to play like that, I haven't taken my marbles elsewhere (DAE and SFX).



Carolinian,

the poster of the poll you quote has his units for rent.  To add clarity you advise that the units he trades with are two bedroom prime ski weeks but, the advertised units are studios at a resort that appears undesirable (a long long drive from slopes)  Would you consider a resort 40 miles from skiing with terrible reviews (http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Re...iews-Inn_at_Silver_Creek-Granby_Colorado.html) an equal trade for prime ocean front resorts?


----------



## rickandcindy23

miamidan said:


> Carolinian,
> 
> the poster of the poll you quote has his units for rent.  To add clarity you advise that the units he trades with are two bedroom prime ski weeks but, the advertised units are studios at a resort that appears undesirable (a long long drive from slopes)  Would you consider a resort 40 miles from skiing with terrible reviews (http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Re...iews-Inn_at_Silver_Creek-Granby_Colorado.html) an equal trade for prime ocean front resorts?



There is a ski area right there, so no driving necessary.  Silvercreek is a ski area.  Winter Park is the largest ski area in the county and is a bit of a drive.  JLB lost trading power because there are too many deposits in RCI for Granby and Fraser, and it bothers him, as it does a lot of people.  

Some of the units are essentially 2 bedrooms, because they have a loft with a bedroom, and a main floor bedroom, but RCI considers it a loft that sleeps only 4 people privately, so they say only 1 bedroom.


----------



## miamidan

Rick and Cindy,

Fair enough but, based on Carolinian's post about location location location this was certainly not a two bedroom and I would question whether it was a prime week as it was not slope front (similar to his analogy of beach front vs. non beach front). and the for rent thread clearly states the unit is a studio.


----------



## Carolinian

rickandcindy23 said:


> There is a ski area right there, so no driving necessary.  Silvercreek is a ski area.  Winter Park is the largest ski area in the county and is a bit of a drive.  JLB lost trading power because there are too many deposits in RCI for Granby and Fraser, and it bothers him, as it does a lot of people.
> 
> Some of the units are essentially 2 bedrooms, because they have a loft with a bedroom, and a main floor bedroom, but RCI considers it a loft that sleeps only 4 people privately, so they say only 1 bedroom.



Overaveraging, the frequent bugaboo of RCI's published numbers.  It exists in overly large geographical areas and overly large groupings of dissimilar weeks.

Under the old non-published numbers system, RCI was able to look at the resort on its own merits and assign it a proper trading power, but when the published numbers came in they looked at it as part of a larger area, which was not that similar, and the resort got downgraded in trading power based on resorts in this larger area.  

It is like on the OBX, when Points Lite came out, they lumped weeks from mid-March to late Spring together with the same number of Points Lite.  Under the old system, a late Spring week substantially outtraded a mid-March week, as it should, but thanks to the overaveraging with Points Lite, the mid-March owners got a windfall and thelate Spring owners got hosed.  Overaveraging has been a common problem in RCI Points, so it is not at all surprising that it is part of the ''enhancement'' downgrades in Points Lite.

And in Dan's hunt for what JLB owns, he overlooks the fact that JLB owns at two different resorts!


----------



## rickandcindy23

JLB enjoyed high trading power for week 10 or so, which is mid-March.  

Believe me, most local people who go to the mountains to ski do not go to Granby, and not one of the Fraser/ Winter Park timeshare resorts is Gold Crown, or even Silver Crown, and they are mostly worn out, need some major remodels, and better management.  Pines and Twin Rivers are better managed than any of the others, and they are both far from Silver Crown.  

If Pines at Meadowridge would remodel their dark kitchens with the butcher block countertops (ugly), and get rid of the ugly "leather" furniture in the living room, get better televisions and add them to both bedrooms, they would be Silver Crown material.  

Twin Rivers needs to charge higher fees and remodel the units' interiors, specifically the bathrooms, carpet, furniture, and it will require a lot of cash, which it doesn't have.  But the board is more interested in keeping fees at $510 for a 3 bedroom.  That's too ridiculous for words! 

There are no Hiltons up Highway 40.


----------



## miamidan

Carolinian said:


> Overaveraging, the frequent bugaboo of RCI's published numbers.  It exists in overly large geographical areas and overly large groupings of dissimilar weeks.
> 
> Under the old non-published numbers system, RCI was able to look at the resort on its own merits and assign it a proper trading power, but when the published numbers came in they looked at it as part of a larger area, which was not that similar, and the resort got downgraded in trading power based on resorts in this larger area.
> 
> It is like on the OBX, when Points Lite came out, they lumped weeks from mid-March to late Spring together with the same number of Points Lite.  Under the old system, a late Spring week substantially outtraded a mid-March week, as it should, but thanks to the overaveraging with Points Lite, the mid-March owners got a windfall and thelate Spring owners got hosed.  Overaveraging has been a common problem in RCI Points, so it is not at all surprising that it is part of the ''enhancement'' downgrades in Points Lite.
> 
> And in Dan's hunt for what JLB owns, he overlooks the fact that JLB owns at two different resorts!



Correct and the other posting is here http://www.timeshareforums.com/forums/classifieds/viewad-671.html which is a two-bedroom Branson timeshare.  GEt your facts right just like you tell others to!


----------



## MichaelColey

Carolinian said:


> Under the old non-published numbers system, RCI was able to look at the resort on its own merits and assign it a proper trading power, but when the published numbers came in they looked at it as part of a larger area, which was not that similar, and the resort got downgraded in trading power based on resorts in this larger area.


So if the old numbers weren't published, how do you know this?


----------



## Carolinian

MichaelColey said:


> So if the old numbers weren't published, how do you know this?



Overaveraging is endemic in RCI's published numbers.  It is there in the RCI Points crossover grids, something I have been pointed out for years before you joined TUG.  It is there, but a bit less so, in the RCI points values for Points resorts.  It is there in the new Points Lite numbers in jamming too many dissimilar weeks together as I mentioned in the OBX example in this thread.

Now as to JLB's situation, it is very clear from Cindy's post what the change was in the new system.  RCI is now including dissimilar resorts some distance away and lumping them altogether for valuation.  Lumping too many things together has ALWAYS  been a problem with ANY published numbers from RCI.


----------



## miamidan

Carolinian said:


> Overaveraging is endemic in RCI's published numbers.  It is there in the RCI Points crossover grids, something I have been pointed out for years before you joined TUG.  It is there, but a bit less so, in the RCI points values for Points resorts.  It is there in the new Points Lite numbers in jamming too many dissimilar weeks together as I mentioned in the OBX example in this thread.
> 
> Now as to JLB's situation, it is very clear from Cindy's post what the change was in the new system.  RCI is now including dissimilar resorts some distance away and lumping them altogether for valuation.  Lumping too many things together has ALWAYS  been a problem with ANY published numbers from RCI.



Rick and Cindy said just the opposite that people would not stay in Granby.  A resort that even the locals don't want to visit (ie location is not good) won't get a unit two bedroom sizes up in a more desirable location.  That does not seem that unreasonable.


----------



## rickandcindy23

> Now as to JLB's situation, it is very clear from Cindy's post what the change was in the new system. RCI is now including dissimilar resorts some distance away and lumping them altogether for valuation. Lumping too many things together has ALWAYS been a problem with ANY published numbers from RCI.


Fraser is actually more desirable, because it is less than 5 miles to the BIG ski area, Winter Park.  Winter Park Ski Area shuttles go directly to the hotels and timeshares in Fraser to pick up skiers, every 15 minutes, so they don't have to park.  

Silvercreek is a very small ski area.


----------



## garyk01

*Sands of Kahana Maui 3 BDRM*

i tried to deposit my week and was going to get 41 points for it.after three calls to RCI they did not know how to deposit it even though its in the 2011-2012 directory. I calls the resort and they said they cancelled dealing with RCI back in 2009 and only deal with II and SFX. So after a hour of calls i told RCI why did they not know they are no longer allowed to accept this place. Did not get any answer. 

I deposited at SFX and ended up get two bonus weeks , so three weeks to use , two have to be booked by 
July 2012 and the other by July 2014 can be used up to one year after those dates. a pretty good deal for one deposit.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> Overaveraging is endemic in RCI's published numbers.  It is there in the RCI Points crossover grids, something I have been pointed out for years before you joined TUG.  It is there, but a bit less so, in the RCI points values for Points resorts.  It is there in the new Points Lite numbers in jamming too many dissimilar weeks together as I mentioned in the OBX example in this thread.
> 
> Now as to JLB's situation, it is very clear from Cindy's post what the change was in the new system.  RCI is now including dissimilar resorts some distance away and lumping them altogether for valuation.  Lumping too many things together has ALWAYS  been a problem with ANY published numbers from RCI.


You didn't answer the question.

If RCI's number were unpublished before the new system, how do you know they were not over averaging before then?  You don't - and if you look at some of the old trade tests you will find that resorts with similar trade power previously are currently assigned similar TPU values.



garyk01 said:


> i tried to deposit my week and was going to get 41 points for it.after three calls to RCI they did not know how to deposit it even though its in the 2011-2012 directory. I calls the resort and they said they cancelled dealing with RCI back in 2009 and only deal with II and SFX. So after a hour of calls i told RCI why did they not know they are no longer allowed to accept this place. Did not get any answer.
> 
> I deposited at SFX and ended up get two bonus weeks , so three weeks to use , two have to be booked by
> July 2012 and the other by July 2014 can be used up to one year after those dates. a pretty good deal for one deposit.


In most cases, when a resort chooses to "leave" one exchange company for another, the owners are still able to exchange through that company - any new units would switch to the other company.  If the resort is unwilling to allow you to deposit your week with RCI, then who else would the not allow you to trade through?  It looks like you got a good deal through SFX, but I would worry about how the resort is restricting the use of your week.


----------

