# Who has exchanged a week with Redweek?



## BocaBum99 (Jul 11, 2007)

I was just wondering if anyone has had success in getting weeks they wanted.

I am not talking about depositing.  I am talking about exchanging a week.


----------



## ricoba (Jul 18, 2007)

I too would be curious about this.

I just did the RW valuation and found out that my HGVC is worth 1450 points, which sounded pretty correct to me if RW is using a "rental" estimate for the week.

I then went and looked for possible resorts/locations etc for a trade and really didn't find anything that I thought would compare at this time to my Hilton unit.

I guess the "secret" must be to use those 1450 points and get 3 or 4 weeks for the one week I am trading.  But when I looked at times and locations, nothing came up that I would be interested in trading in to.

I also looked for Hawaii resorts and there were no listings for HI.

So my assumption is that this is all a new system and that it will take awhile for RW to build a broader inventory, is that correct?

So, I too am asking like Boca, has anyone actually traded yet?

I do like the model, and costs, but before I give up my week, I just want to make sure that I will be satisfied with the trade.

Rick


----------



## ttt (Jul 18, 2007)

Someone took the 2 BR SW Florida week 6/2008 week I deposited, but I have not looked for an exchange yet.


----------



## JMAESD84 (Jul 18, 2007)

*I like the REDWEEK model and rates so....*

I deposited a spring break 08' week in southern Florida that has been taken by another depositer but I have yet to make a selection for myself.  I may make another deposit within the next year so that I have enough accumulated points to grab anything they might have that catches my eye one day.

I wish them much success with the new exchange system.


----------



## ricoba (Jul 18, 2007)

I sent an email to RW about the same time I posted here and got back this nice note within an hour or two.

"_Thanks for your interest in RedWeek Exchange - that is an excellent 
question. 

Right now, unfortunately, we don't have any weeks available in 
Hawaii.  Being a new service, we are working hard to encourage owners 
to deposit their weeks.  We should start seeing better weeks flowing 
within the next few weeks. 

That being said, we have an automated system that assigns points 
values to weeks based on a set of criteria, and then a human being 
manually reviews them before they go out.  Everything has been 
designed so that you can receive "like for like" trades when the weeks 
do come in.  Your 1450 points may even be used to reserve multiple 
lesser quality (or last minute) weeks elsewhere in the world.  

I hope this helps.  Thanks for trying our new system - we won't let 
you down _"

I thought it was an appropriate response and I appreciated the quick customer service.  Not sure about the "we won't let you down" but other than that I don't have a complaint about their customer service.

But I still am leery to deposit my week, since I really don't see the higher end resorts that I know I could get if I go through RCI via HGVC.


----------



## OnMedic (Jul 18, 2007)

ricoba said:


> I sent an email to RW about the same time I posted here and got back this nice note within an hour or two.
> 
> "_Thanks for your interest in RedWeek Exchange - that is an excellent
> question.
> ...




I looked at depositing Memorial week at HGVc HHV 2008, and it was gonna give me 2,000 pts. Not bad and maybe I will consider if I see something of interest come up.


----------



## OnMedic (Jul 19, 2007)

P.S. - If anyone wants to deposit a Marriott Hilton Head Island it could be considered a done deal!


----------



## tomandrobin (Jul 19, 2007)

Just an FYI, I got an value of 2553 points for my Westin Kierland week. I didn't deposit the week since there was not any inventory that met our needs.


----------



## JMAESD84 (Jul 19, 2007)

*I understand the caution*

that people are expressing about not wanting to deposit YET because they don't see the comparable inventory as being available for exchange.  I guess if it's the only week you have, it's a bigger risk.

If you believe as I do that REDWEEK exists for the benefit of timeshare owners and that they have implemented an open and workable model for this new exchange program, then have some faith in them and help prime the pump with your quality deposits.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 19, 2007)

JMAESD84 said:


> that people are expressing about not wanting to deposit YET because they don't see the comparable inventory as being available for exchange.  I guess if it's the only week you have, it's a bigger risk.
> 
> If you believe as I do that REDWEEK exists for the benefit of timeshare owners and that they have implemented an open and workable model for this new exchange program, then have some faith in them and help prime the pump with your quality deposits.




What you are not factoring into the equation is the risk that a deposit incurs when dealing with a new exchange venture.  

Since the depositer bears a lot of risk in depositing, they should receive MORE than a FAIR one for one exchange.   Redweek doesn't appear to understand this issue.

It would be like a bank saying to you, deposit your money into my high risk venture.  I'll give you exactly the same money you put in after 3 years.  

The bottom line is that depositers must be compensated for the risk they are bearing and it appears that most depositers don't see the risk as worth it for a like kind exchange especially since they have so many alternatives where they get a trade up with a lot less risk.

Redweek needs to get a lot of free deposits in the US market or they will fail by the end of the year.


----------



## ricoba (Jul 19, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> Since the depositer bears a lot of risk in depositing, they should receive MORE than a FAIR one for one exchange.   Redweek doesn't appear to understand this issue.



I agree and think that is the issue for me at this point.

My week is New Years in Vegas.  I am not willing to give that up, until I see some higher quality resorts and weeks come available on the RW site.

OnMedic, I would never turn over a HHV week, at least not yet.  There is nothing in comparison that I have seen on Redweeks list that would match that in my opinion.

I tend to agree that when they partnered with DAE, they got a lot of lower tiered resorts.

No offense to folks that own these resorts.


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 19, 2007)

*Redweek Exchange*

Well, I bit the bullet and deposited my week with Redweek.

I have a 3BR Christie Lodge spring break ski week, March 15-22, 2008. They gave me 1800 points. I had it listed for rent on Redweek at $1799 - interesting.

I did not see anything I liked but decided to jump in and help get the ball rolling, since RCI has been a joke the last two years. I have three years to use my points and can pay the difference if something better comes along. I am hoping a coastal texas comes available for March 2008.

In the mean time, I still have Marriott Waiohai for using and Marriott Legends Egde for the 100K Rewards Points.

Redweek gave me a quote of $3000 for my Waiohai, which is also about what it rents for.

I hope a few more of YOU JUMP IN and matbe we'll have something better going forward.

Good Luck


----------



## Phill12 (Jul 19, 2007)

JMAESD84 said:


> that people are expressing about not wanting to deposit YET because they don't see the comparable inventory as being available for exchange.  I guess if it's the only week you have, it's a bigger risk.
> 
> If you believe as I do that REDWEEK exists for the benefit of timeshare owners and that they have implemented an open and workable model for this new exchange program, then have some faith in them and help prime the pump with your quality deposits.




 First I do hope Redweek exchange makes it but have my doubts!   

 I also had my points (1934) but see nothing I would trade for! The problem I see here are many owners of lower resorts and weeks are going to jump on with their deposits. They can now pay extra money and stay in five star condo that is impossible with their trading company. 

 Next you have owners like myself that spent the money to own great resort and top seasons with high trade value. Most of these owners didn't buy to trade down to cheap resort.

 The way I see it is most owners want to exchange and get top trade. You can not get owners at top traders if you can not give them top traders!

 Everyone wanting to get top resort exchange can not work and this system will become top heavy very quickly!

 Next that will happen is RW will get stuck with the dogs and trying to dump them and probably try renting cheap. Now this is in conflect with the owners paying RW to list their units for rent too!  

 How many post have we seen already that owners are dumping units they bought for very little money just to trade!

 This exchange could become dumping grounds for the dog traders and just fade away !


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 19, 2007)

*Softballdad3*

Don't forget that the system allows owners of good weeks to get multiple bad weeks in exchange. It also allows bad week owners to turn in two or three years and accumulate the points to get a good week.

I think that portion of the system is huge. For instance, I could turn in my Waiohai and possibly go to coastal Texas, central Texas and Orlando - three weeks for one!

The system should work if people start depositing. Just like all other systems, including rental, the longer you wait the less value you will have in your unit. The asking price in points for untaken weeks will be lowered as the deadline approaches, but so will the offering price on your week.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 19, 2007)

thinze3 said:


> Don't forget that the system allows owners of good weeks to get multiple bad weeks in exchange. It also allows bad week owners to turn in two or three years and accumulate the points to get a good week.
> 
> I think that portion of the system is huge. For instance, I could turn in my Waiohai and possibly go to coastal Texas, central Texas and Orlando - three weeks for one!
> 
> The system should work if people start depositing. Just like all other systems, including rental, the longer you wait the less value you will have in your unit. The asking price in points for untaken weeks will be lowered as the deadline approaches, but so will the offering price on your week.



Sure, that's the theory, but the following scenario is more likely.  Your Marriott Waiahai will become shark bait and snapped up immediately by DAE.

And, you will either get nothing after 3 years or 4 or 5 dog weeks you can't use in Ko Samui.


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 19, 2007)

*BocaBum*

Do you work for RCI??

You are all over the TugBB slamming Redweeks exchange program. Why?

Truth is, RCI has turned to the dogs in recent years, and Redweek is offering people a real option here. You cannot assume everything they are doing will fail and that everyweek deposited will be a "trash" week.

I have seen a handful of decent rooms traded already, and chances are they will continue to get better not worse.

I see where a person was offered 2000 points for a 3BR Kingsgate. I traded my 3BR Chrisite Lodge (not so great week) for a 3BR Kingsgate three years ago. Redweek gave me 1800 points for my unit. All-in-all that was a pretty even exchange offer.

Somebody else was offered 2800 for a 2BR Marriott Kauai. They offered me about the same for Waiohai. They ARE making fair offers.

The deposits WILL start coming in after a few more people continue to read here and on other boards about it. It is just a trust issue at this point.

GIVE IT TIME. Good Luck


----------



## PeelBoy (Jul 19, 2007)

If you are looking for a prime week in Hawaii, you should not deposit yours with Redweek.  Every independent specialize in a small market.  If they meet your needs, deal with them; otherwise, continue your payment to RCI.

I should have used my RW points for a few dog weeks in Scotland or Bali.  I am still waiting because of the 4 x 2 weeks vacation booked within the next 12 months.


----------



## Art (Jul 19, 2007)

Thinze3

It is a lot more that a trust issue.  When I can deposit any of my Marriott weeks with II on a request first basis, or worst case, a deposit first basis, I have first crack (24 day priority) for any other Marriott weeks that are deposited with II.

That includes  some significant up-grades as long as the II comparable exchange criteria is met.  It has been my experience that most Marriott Resorts are of sufficiently high quality that they can be exchanged for any other Marriott resort, subject to unit size and season comparability effects on trading power.

Giving up what is close to a sure thing in terms of getting a good trade really isn't a very smart maneuver.  Now, if there were a worthwhile incentive . . .

How about giving me 2 trades with the points that I get for depositing a week that is worth 1500 points, and add on another free trade for each 500 point increase in the value of a deposited week?  Do this for 2 or 3 years and then slowly reduce the incentives.    Sure, it would be a significant start-up cost, but that's the price of getting into a new business.

Art


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 19, 2007)

thinze3 said:


> Do you work for RCI??
> 
> You are all over the TugBB slamming Redweeks exchange program. Why?
> 
> ...




No, I don't work for RCI.  In fact, I don't like them much either.  But, given the current Redweek exchange company and RCI, I'd have to take RCI today.

As I said, I hope that Redweek is successful.  The timesharing industry needs more competition.  I am just calling it like I see it.  Sorry if it doesn't seem polyanna to you.

Do you dispute any of the facts and logic that I present?  If so, add to the conversation.

I am trying to understand the underlying success factors in creating an exchange company.  I have learned a lot from the Redweek experiment.

I used to think that even exchanges was the central aspect of creating a viable exchange company.  That's because it would more efficiently map supply and demand.  After seeing a very enterprising company try it, I have changed my opinion.  I now believe that the central and key aspect of a successful exchange company is the free weeks it gets from its affiliations.  Mapping supply and demand only matters if you have supply to map demand to.

This insight was not really on my radar screen until I saw the behavior of the Redweek system and the actions of the posters on this message board.  No matter how much I learned, I believe Redweek has learned more since they are putting their own money into it.

I believe that Redweek can be successful if it gets a source of free weeks at US locations that starts the exchange system going.

They can do that in many ways.  One of which is to form some type of affliation agreement with resort developers or HOAs.  It could have HOAs that are no longer in development provide them last minute inventory to eliminate the conflict of interest in resort developer sales.  The HOA could then have a rental program or a resale program for its members offered through Redweek.  That would be a source of free inventory.  That could really work well for them.

My conclusion is that if Redweek doesn't do something like what I am saying that they will not be able to survive.  If you have logic that suggests otherwise, I really would be interested in hearing it.

I also do not believe that Redweek is standing still.  I am sure they will come up with better ideas than I have in creating this entrepreneurial effort.

What I am doing is shining light on the real issues that they face which does provide insights that depositers will need to make a judicious decision on whether or not to deposit.  Some of us on this message board who jumped too soon may pay the price for not acting judiciously and fully informed.

So, if I come across negatively, I apologize to you for that.  I am actually trying to call it like I see it without passion or prejudice.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 19, 2007)

So, the question that someone could ask me is who do I like?

My three favorite exchange companies are II, SFX and TPI.

II has most of the branded hotel chains and they appear to have a favorable exchange balance for depositers today.  It isn't hard to get a prime week exchange or find availability in many locations.

SFX has access to a lot of prime weeks.  They specialize in it.  In addition, they do have affiliation agreements that help them reduce the exchange gap problem that faces all exchange companies.

TPI.  Originally, I thought they would end up like DAE since they have any anything in gets anything out trading power formula.  But, since they manage resorts, they get a lot of free inventory that stokes the exchange game.  

What each of these exchange companies have in common are the free weeks they get to plug the exchange gap created by expiring weeks and bonus weeks.

As soon as Redweek plugs that gap, then can eventually become as good as one of these three exchange companies.

DAE does have what appears to be excellent inventory overseas.  And, they have EXCELLENT customer service.  Without knowing the facts for how they got it, my guess is they are getting free weeks from key affiliations.  That keeps those sources very high all the time.  So, those who want to exchange overseas are able to do so.  When people ask me how to exchange overseas I always have them look at DAE first.


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 19, 2007)

Kudos BocaBum.
I have only experience with RCI. I have never traded elsewhere.

ART
Do have any experience with Marriott's Florida Club? I am new to Legends Edge and would like more info. I have read the OLD posts, but information seems to be speculative by those who are not experienced in it.


----------



## ricoba (Jul 19, 2007)

Thinze3... 

Good luck on your trade.  Let us know how it works out for you.

I think I am like Boca and others here, we are just concerned that when we look at the current inventory available, we don't see "like-for-like" or better quality resorts.

I know there are lots and lots of people here on TUG that own a stand alone timeshare and they are very happy with it and there are many of them that I am sure are super resorts.  But I guess, I like the idea of trading into a hotel like system or a larger resort with a lot more amenities than some of the smaller properties can offer.

I instantly liked the ease and cost and good service of the RW plan, it's just that I want to see it become successful, before I take the risk of depositing with them.


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 19, 2007)

Ricoba

I totally understand the wait and see attitude. I have used, rented and traded my 3BR Christie Lodge. I decided to turn it in because we don't ski often enough, I'm tired of renting it, and RCI trades have become worse in the last two years.

I own a Marriott Waiohai, which I love, and just purchased Marriott Legends Edge because of the cost & fees vs. the rewards points and the fact that it is the closest Marriott to my home.

I guess I just had a timeshare to spare, if you will. I decided to bite the bullet after several very friendly emails with Kylie at Redweek. They seemed determined and genuine.


----------



## Art (Jul 20, 2007)

Thinze3

I've never tried a Florida Club exchange

The big catch is that you can only reserve on the order of six months prior to check-in data at another resort which means that your chances of doing this in prime season are somewhere between slim and none.  I assume that you have read all those posts about owners calling at 9 AM exactly 12 months in advance to reserve their weeks.  

However, I don't recall any TUG posts from people singing the praises on the Florida Club.  The consensus seems to be to pay the $89 "internal" exchange fee and take advantage of the 24 day priority period for trades to another MVCI.  More $, but much better chance of getting what you want.

Art


----------



## rcnet (Jul 20, 2007)

*Just deposited my Myrtle Beach July 2008 with Redweek*

I got 2017 points for it.  We've been going for several years and wanted a break.  So we're going to try Orlando/Disney next year.  Hope they have better inventory soon.  I'm willing to give them a shot, considering I've got 3 years before they expire.  Anything but RCI.


----------



## bnoble (Jul 20, 2007)

> I now believe that the central and key aspect of a successful exchange company is the free weeks it gets from its affiliations.


Watching at least RCI, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise.  The developer is king.  Why?  Because the developer-supplied weeks are what make that exchange run---bulk developer deposits that allow owners to trade up.


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 20, 2007)

*rcnet*



rcnet said:


> I got 2017 points for it.  We've been going for several years and wanted a break.  So we're going to try Orlando/Disney next year.  Hope they have better inventory soon.  I'm willing to give them a shot, considering I've got 3 years before they expire.  Anything but RCI.



What resort did you deposit?


----------



## janapur (Jul 21, 2007)

I just requested the points value for my 2BR Sands of Kahana and 2BR lockoff Mayan Palace. I'll post the results.

I'm willing to give it a try because it's time to put our money where our mouths are- for those of us complaining about RCI. 

For those arguing the lack of comparable trades, I don't agree. While I may not get another Maui, I will undoubtedly get a whole bunch of points to make several choices. I saw some great choices, including two resorts at which I own. What could be more fair than a currency type of exchange program? 

The only disadvantage is for those expecting to "trade up" with their weakest weeks. I'll save my dog weeks for RCI. 

I, too, have a surplus of weeks- which does affect my willingness to take the risk. It's time to give the big guys a run for their money.

Jana


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 21, 2007)

janapur said:


> I just requested the points value for my 2BR Sands of Kahana and 2BR lockoff Mayan Palace. I'll post the results.
> 
> I'm willing to give it a try because it's time to put our money where our mouths are- for those of us complaining about RCI.......
> 
> ...



I hope you get acceptable offers.
You have nice resorts, and this will help get the ball rolling.

Good Luck!


----------



## PerryM (Jul 21, 2007)

*Will work for Pizza and Beer...*

RW, I've taken the plunge and did my part - how about your part?


I realize that this is a startup venture but for me to constantly check eMails I get from you concerning a specific resort is already getting old - I need an on-going search that will make an exchange for me at 2 AM while I'm sleeping.

II and RCI have this, I'm assuming that you will to - why not tomorrow?

This is all I need and I'd bet a couple of smart programmers could implement this in half a day and might do it for just pizzas and beer.

So, let's at least offer the tools II and RCI offer - they are so bad to begin with but I'm starting to become envious of them!


----------



## rcnet (Jul 21, 2007)

thinze3 said:


> What resort did you deposit?



Plantation Resorts, Surfside Beach, SC


----------



## djyamyam (Jul 21, 2007)

PeelBoy said:


> If you are looking for a prime week in Hawaii, you should not deposit yours with Redweek. Every independent specialize in a small market. If they meet your needs, deal with them; otherwise, continue your payment to RCI.
> 
> I should have used my RW points for a few dog weeks in Scotland or Bali. I am still waiting because of the 4 x 2 weeks vacation booked within the next 12 months.


 
Peelboy, I never did see your summer SC unit/resort show up.

Did you ever see it posted?


----------



## PeelBoy (Jul 21, 2007)

djyamyam said:


> Peelboy, I never did see your summer SC unit/resort show up.
> 
> Did you ever see it posted?



No, I never saw my week.

Someone from Redweek called me on Thursday to verify details of my week and my membership number with Plantation Resort Myrtle Beach.

It took them 5 weeks.

Was told my week will show in 2 to 3 days.  I am watching.


----------



## joycapecod (Jul 21, 2007)

I was offered 850 points for a 3 bedroom week 32 in Ireland. Granted the resort is nothing to write home about, but it is 3 bedroom and it is Ireland. I passed.

So, since it has so little value in RedWeek's opinion, why would I deposit it with them? 

I guess no one wants to go to Ireland during August???

When I see what RedWeek has offer for resorts in Williamsburg and Orlando it really does make me wonder.


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 21, 2007)

PeelBoy said:


> No, I never saw my week.
> 
> Someone from Redweek called me on Thursday to verify details of my week and my membership number with Plantation Resort Myrtle Beach.
> 
> ...



My deposit at Christie Lodge took about 2 weeks to show up. Redweek said that the delay was with my resort. I believe them, because the people at Christie Lodge are not usually very helpful to me as an owner.

Anyhow, it did show up and is available for the same 1800 points they gave me.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 21, 2007)

The WorldMark unit I deposited took 2+ weeks to show up and was gone in one day.  I checked the WM reservation on-line and a name appears on the reservation that I've never dealt with - I'm guessing the guy who exchanged into the WM via RW.

So exchanges are taking place.

P.S.
I see a "Cancel" button next to the WM reservation under my WM account - I wonder what kind of mayhem I could invoke by pressing that button?  Hope a modicum of safeguards exists.

P.P.S.
RW, I once threw out the suggestion that you include Vacation Insurance with each exchange - for FREE!  This would be a perfect example of why it's needed - some blockhead is going to forget that a reservation was deposited in RW and cancel or reassign that reservation - then what?

So I again throw out the marketing gimmick of "FREE INSURANCE" at least on the timeshare part of the vacation.  Since your RW Points exchange into/out of US dollars the insurance would be for the US dollars worth.  E.g. I make an exchange for 1,800 RW Points and the front desk clerk tells me that someone else is already in the unit - you send a Western Union cash payment of $1,800 to me and I find something else that night.  You then credit back 1,800 RW points back into my account and send a guy over, who is listed under your rolodex as "Fat Tony", to the owner of the exchange.


----------



## janapur (Jul 21, 2007)

janapur said:


> I just requested the points value for my 2BR Sands of Kahana and 2BR lockoff Mayan Palace. I'll post the results.
> 
> I'm willing to give it a try because it's time to put our money where our mouths are- for those of us complaining about RCI.
> 
> ...



I got the offer very quickly. 2014 for Mayan Palace 2BR lockoff and 2100 for Sands of Kahana. I'll deposit the Mayan, but not the Maui. I just put in a request for valuation for our 3  1BR Summer Bay Las Vegas weeks (all are week 52, 2007). These should be pretty good.

Come on everybody, jump in . . . the water's fine!

Jana


----------



## Phill12 (Jul 21, 2007)

janapur said:


> I just requested the points value for my 2BR Sands of Kahana and 2BR lockoff Mayan Palace. I'll post the results.
> 
> I'm willing to give it a try because it's time to put our money where our mouths are- for those of us complaining about RCI.
> 
> Janapur I thought SOK was with II? Does SOK deal with both companies!


----------



## 3kids4me (Jul 22, 2007)

Just out of curiousity, I submitted a valuation request for a summer Smuggs week and it was valued at 1982 points.

I don't know much about that system yet, but that seems low to me for this resort during this time period.  Also...someone needs to hire some marketing folks over there...if you're going to value something at 1982, you might as well add 18 measly points and make it 2,000, which looks a heck of a lot better to the (depositing) consumer!  

Sharon


----------



## myip (Jul 22, 2007)

Redweek needs to give some more incentive in order for people to start depositing week with them.  They should at least waive the membership fees for 6 months.


----------



## janapur (Jul 22, 2007)

SOFTBALLDAD3 said:


> janapur said:
> 
> 
> > I just requested the points value for my 2BR Sands of Kahana and 2BR lockoff Mayan Palace. I'll post the results.
> ...


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 22, 2007)

bnoble said:


> Watching at least RCI, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise.  The developer is king.  Why?  Because the developer-supplied weeks are what make that exchange run---bulk developer deposits that allow owners to trade up.



I always knew it was important.  But now, I believe it is the CENTRALLY important factor.  If I were loaded with free weeks from a dozen resort developers, I could create a fantastic niche independent exchange company with one developer (the programmer type, not the reosrt type. lol) and a couple customer service reps.  That is all it would take.  That is probably how exchange companies like HTSE got started.

BUT, if I had those weeks and I were really smart, I wouldn't create an exchange company.  Instead, I would create a rental company.  Why?  Because I would make a lot more money.

Relating this back to the question of whether or not RCI is renting spacebanked weeks, I strongly believe now that the reduction in prime week exchange opportunities is MORE to do with RCI taking developer deposits and renting them than it is with RCI renting spacebanked weeks.

Those free developer weeks kept the RCI exchange system pump primed for decades.  When they figured out that they could make more money renting those weeks instead of making them available for exchange, they started to do it.

Sadly, this is a completely legitimate use of those free weeks.  What RCI didn't tell you is that a weeks based exchange system is not a viable system without those free weeks.  So, even though RCI's corporate spin is that all it is doing is renting developer weeks.   It doesn't follow on with the statement "and we know that this will seriously deplete the prime week exchange pool that the RCI exchange system needs to remain viable long term."

If RCI is indeed renting spacebanked weeks, I believe it is just bad controls rather than proactive policy.  Given this insight about developer deposits and its central role in the viability of the exchange system, RCI should have known and predicted the impact to the exchange system and created a clearer firewall between the rentals and the exchange program to shield itself from lawsuits.  Perhaps they did.   

Time will tell if RW will be a successful exchange company.  We will see if my theory of free weeks plays out with them and their success.  If will be fun to watch unfold.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 22, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> I always knew it was important.  But now, I believe it is the CENTRALLY important factor.  If I were loaded with free weeks from a dozen resort developers, I could create a fantastic niche independent exchange company with one developer (the programmer type, not the reosrt type. lol) and a couple customer service reps.  That is all it would take.  That is probably how exchange companies like HTSE got started.
> 
> BUT, if I had those weeks and I were really smart, I wouldn't create an exchange company.  Instead, I would create a rental company.  Why?  Because I would make a lot more money.
> 
> ...




Isn't this exactly why an independent company, free from the developer's schemes, is needed?

I think so and stood up and deposited some weeks that I had which were going to be rented and not used.  Surely folks out there have weeks that they can deposit in RW and "Prime the Pump" or get the "Chicken 'N Egg" thing rolling.

We all know that II and RCI are beholding to the developers, just like our slick politicians are beholding to the folks with big bucks - RW is an independent and hopefully will NEVER take ANY weeks from a developer.

So if you've ever complained about II/RCI how about doing something about it but complaining - take a week and deposit it in RW.  I, of course, would love to see a week 52 Marriott somewhere but I'd settle for more than 5 pages of inventory for North America.

Complaining about II and RCI is only going to have you buy more Purple Pills to control that heart burn - actually do something about it.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 22, 2007)

PerryM said:


> The WorldMark unit I deposited took 2+ weeks to show up and was gone in one day.  I checked the WM reservation on-line and a name appears on the reservation that I've never dealt with - I'm guessing the guy who exchanged into the WM via RW.
> 
> So exchanges are taking place.
> 
> ...



congratulations.  ding, ding, ding, ding.  we have a winner.  someone actually exchanged a week.  That's ONE.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 22, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Isn't this exactly why an independent company, free from the developer's schemes, is needed?
> [/UNQUOTE]
> 
> It's not a matter of whether or not it's needed.  It's a matter of whether or not it can be a viable long term enterprise without the developer deposits.
> ...


----------



## taffy19 (Jul 22, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> Relating this back to the question of whether or not RCI is renting spacebanked weeks, I strongly believe now that the reduction in prime week exchange opportunities is MORE to do with RCI taking developer deposits and renting them than it is with RCI renting spacebanked weeks.
> 
> Those free developer weeks kept the RCI exchange system pump primed for decades. When they figured out that they could make more money renting those weeks instead of making them available for exchange, they started to do it.
> 
> Sadly, this is a completely legitimate use of those free weeks. What RCI didn't tell you is that a weeks based exchange system is not a viable system without those free weeks.


That is an eye opener so RCI isn't doing anything illegally at all!  Renting is more profitable for them but so long they keep getting enough money from the exchange system too, they will keep it running. Since they own the Wyndham Resorts too, it is still to their advantage to use RCI as their exchange company of choice besides their internal system. This is where they are stretching the truth if they tell people that exchanging is so easy to do in RCI, because it isn't! 

It may be very good with FairShare Plus exchanges but mainly for the people who buy from the developer as they are offered many extra goodies too like early reservations or better views.

Buy a timeshare where you want to return to often and you cannot go wrong because exchanging is only getting more expensive over time with all the extra fees and it isn't getting any easier with so many different systems out there now.

I hope that RedWeek will succeed so people, who still own weeks, have a better place to go than RCI. I submitted our two timeshares in HI about a month ago and this is what they offered us.

Marriott MOC in Maui for a fixed week (oceanfront) starting March 22, 2008 - 3,200 points
Maui Sunset in Maui for a fixed week (ocean view) starting April 4, 2008 - 1,484 points

If it had been cash, I would have considered it but we booked our flights so we are going back to Maui next year.


----------



## taffy19 (Jul 22, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Complaining about II and RCI is only going to have you buy more Purple Pills to control that heart burn - actually do something about it.


True again!  It's like hitting a hard wall over and over again.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jul 22, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> … Relating this back to the question of whether or not RCI is renting spacebanked weeks, I strongly believe now that the reduction in prime week exchange opportunities is MORE to do with RCI taking developer deposits and renting them than it is with RCI renting spacebanked weeks.…



Granting that hypothesis for the moment, it's also possible that developers are placing inventory with RCI or II with the mandate that they rent the weeks instead of putting them into the exchange pool.

Developers have always been willing to place weeks with an exchange company to create a flow of traffic at the resort.  Those people then become targets for the sales presentation.  

IIRC from my early days on TUG, developers liked to generate traffic from people who already owned timeshares - existing timeshare owners were considered better prospects because the sales staff didn't need to break down the bad perceptions about timesharing prevalent in the general populace.

It's possible that now that calculus is changing - with "brand names" in the business and an overall improvement in the industry reputation "fresh meat" might present better sales opportunities.

And, if you are a developer trying to move inventory in bulk to qualified buyers, why not place that inventory with entities that have the most experience doing vacation condo rentals??

And who are the two entities with the most experience doing vacation condo rentals??  RCI and ResortQuest.  IIRC, II and ResortQuest are owned by the same outfit.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 22, 2007)

The time for speculation about where RCI gets its rental inventory is over!
RCI employee Bootleg, who was long a reliable source of inside RCI info on these boards, TOLD us that he had followed quite a few prime weeks from their deposit for exchange in the Weeks system by an RCI member to their almost immediate diversion into RCI's rental pool.  Bootleg with his access to RCI's computers could do that, and it shoots all of the pro-RCI speculation full of holes.  And its not just Bootleg.  Read the posts from several RCI employees, particularly Anon, over at TimeshareTalk.  They same the same thing.

And with only one OBX resort still in developer sales, I know that all of the RCI rentals I see at other OBX resorts simply cannot be developer deposits. And that also shoots your theory full of holes.  There are a lot of RCI rentals out there at SOLD OUT resorts which CANNOT be developer inventory!




BocaBum99 said:


> Relating this back to the question of whether or not RCI is renting spacebanked weeks, I strongly believe now that the reduction in prime week exchange opportunities is MORE to do with RCI taking developer deposits and renting them than it is with RCI renting spacebanked weeks.
> 
> Those free developer weeks kept the RCI exchange system pump primed for decades.  When they figured out that they could make more money renting those weeks instead of making them available for exchange, they started to do it.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Jul 22, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> The time for speculation about where RCI gets its rental inventory is over!
> *RCI employee Bootleg*, who was long a reliable source of inside RCI info on these boards, TOLD us that he had followed quite a few prime weeks from their deposit for exchange in the Weeks system by an RCI member to their almost immediate diversion into RCI's rental pool.  Bootleg with his access to RCI's computers could do that, and it shoots all of the pro-RCI speculation full of holes.  And its not just Bootleg.  Read the posts from several RCI employees, particularly Anon, over at TimeshareTalk.  They same the same thing.
> 
> And with only one OBX resort still in developer sales, I know that all of the RCI rentals I see at other OBX resorts simply cannot be developer deposits. And that also shoots your theory full of holes.  There are a lot of RCI rentals out there at SOLD OUT resorts which CANNOT be developer inventory!



Mr/Ms Bootleg; will you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?  Same with you Mr/Ms Anon...

I believe this would be classified under Hearsay - to then declare it the truth and to make suppositions is 180 degrees from what our legal system is based upon.

Well, at least that's what 50 years of watching TV has taught me....Thank's Perry Mason.  To quote from Wikipedia "Theory of The Hearsay Rule: The theory of the rule against Hearsay is that assertions made by human beings are naturally unreliable."  Thanks Wikipedia.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 23, 2007)

Perry, virtually everything on these boards is hearsay. Unfortunately, we do not have a clerk of court on these boards to swear us all in before we post!  Nobody ever swore Madge in, and you seem to believe her.  Oh, and quoting Wikipedia is about as reliable as quoting Mad Magazine.  Look at how many times their Timeshare entry gets edited and by whom and for what purpose.  'Nuf said!

Bootleg had no reason to lie.  He was a straight shooter who defended his company when appropriate.  Indeed he initially defended them on the rental issue until he found the smoking gun at his RCI computer terminal.  His natural reaction was to defend his company, but when he found the facts to be against them, he revealed them.  

As to Anon, the owner of TimeshareTalk was initially concerned about having a poster stating he worked for RCI, so the owner checked him out by asking questions about his own RCI account that only someone with access to RCI's computers could answer.  Anon came back with all of the correct answers.

Much as it is inconvenient to the theories of yourself and some others, these people ARE the real McCoy!



PerryM said:


> Mr/Ms Bootleg; will you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?  Same with you Mr/Ms Anon...
> 
> I believe this would be classified under Hearsay - to then declare it the truth and to make suppositions is 180 degrees from what our legal system is based upon.
> 
> Well, at least that's what 50 years of watching TV has taught me....Thank's Perry Mason.  To quote from Wikipedia "Theory of The Hearsay Rule: The theory of the rule against Hearsay is that assertions made by human beings are naturally unreliable."  Thanks Wikipedia.


----------



## janapur (Jul 23, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> The time for speculation about where RCI gets its rental inventory is over!
> RCI employee Bootleg, who was long a reliable source of inside RCI info on these boards, TOLD us that he had followed quite a few prime weeks from their deposit for exchange in the Weeks system by an RCI member to their almost immediate diversion into RCI's rental pool.  Bootleg with his access to RCI's computers could do that, and it shoots all of the pro-RCI speculation full of holes.  And its not just Bootleg.  Read the posts from several RCI employees, particularly Anon, over at TimeshareTalk.  They same the same thing.
> 
> And with only one OBX resort still in developer sales, I know that all of the RCI rentals I see at other OBX resorts simply cannot be developer deposits. And that also shoots your theory full of holes.  There are a lot of RCI rentals out there at SOLD OUT resorts which CANNOT be developer inventory!




I would have to agree based on my own experience with "sold out" resorts at which I own. On several occasions, I have been unable to exchange back into my resorts. However, the RCI rep was delighted to tell me about the Extra Vacation I could rent.

Jana


----------



## PerryM (Jul 23, 2007)

*Proof, and not the stuff in liquor bottles, is needed*



Carolinian said:


> Perry, virtually everything on these boards is hearsay. Unfortunately, we do not have a clerk of court on these boards to swear us all in before we post!  Nobody ever swore Madge in, and you seem to believe her.  Oh, and quoting Wikipedia is about as reliable as quoting Mad Magazine.  Look at how many times their Timeshare entry gets edited and by whom and for what purpose.  'Nuf said!
> 
> Bootleg had no reason to lie.  He was a straight shooter who defended his company when appropriate.  Indeed he initially defended them on the rental issue until he found the smoking gun at his RCI computer terminal.  His natural reaction was to defend his company, but when he found the facts to be against them, he revealed them.
> 
> ...



Granted that we can’t have every word on a chat room backed up with a link to a reference BUT when accusing a person/company of something that is illegal, unethical, sleazy, or immoral I, personally, do want a verifiable source involved.

In the case of accusing RCI of truly hideous charges of stabbing their customers in the back a higher standard of “proof” must be involved – if not this chat room gets dragged down the conspiracy rabbit hole.

I have guesses and theories of how RCI and II work – I would never then take those guesses and accuse RCI/II of anything – the burden of proof is on me to prove, with additional corroboration, that those guesses are more than random thoughts.

If you can provide me with links to a BootLeg and Anon posts where they agree on a subject that would be something I would place some emphasis.  E.g. if both individuals purport to have seen event “X” happen then I will consider that event to be more than gossip, and gossip from a possible disgruntled employee(s).

Perhaps you have already done this, if so I am not aware of it.  So until I see more corroboration to gossip I will exclude all this RCI hatred as just another wild and crazy banter between folks who seem to thoroughly hate RCI.

I have this very same problem with other chat rooms – they are morphing into consumer activism and I’m beginning to expect tin foil hats as required equipment to participate.






janapur said:


> I would have to agree based on my own experience with "sold out" resorts at which I own. On several occasions, I have been unable to exchange back into my resorts. However, the RCI rep was delighted to tell me about the Extra Vacation I could rent.
> 
> Jana




Unfortunatly/fortunatly a week based barter exchange system, like RCI, is steeped in secrets and mysterious events.  This is on purpose - it would be like being in the garden and wearing baseball mitts - the wrong tool is being used for a function.  When RCI started up, many moons ago, they unfortunately picked the wrong way to exchange timeshare reservations which are based upon size (Studio...4BR), season (Low demand...High demand), supply and demand, and developer bulk deposits.

I assume that no conspiracy exists where RCI is renting a unit versus exchanging it - I assume that what we are seeing is the natural by-product of the wrong tool being used for exchanging timeshare reservations - what else do we expect but totally wrong answers.  Just like our gardener who is wearing a catcher's mitt on one hand and a pitcher's in the other you would expect only LARGE weeds to be pulled.  The large weeds are not an attempt to ignore small weeds but a by-product of the wrong tool for picking weeds.

Conclusion:
RCI/II picked the wrong method of providing a venue for timeshare owners to exchange reservations and on top of that RCI is trying to integrate RCI Points and Travel Agency functions into their offerings.  There is no wonder the outcome is just plain wrong.

Accuse RCI of all the underhanded, sneaky tactics you want - the answer is really the tools they picked to do business are just wrong.

P.S.
It is our job, as consumers, to maximize our usage of a service/product - there is much to exploit in both II and RCI - we should all be jumping for joy at the stupidity of both companies for picking the wrong exchange method.  To fight this stupidity is, again, the wrong tool.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 23, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> The time for speculation about where RCI gets its rental inventory is over!
> RCI employee Bootleg, who was long a reliable source of inside RCI info on these boards, TOLD us that he had followed quite a few prime weeks from their deposit for exchange in the Weeks system by an RCI member to their almost immediate diversion into RCI's rental pool.  Bootleg with his access to RCI's computers could do that, and it shoots all of the pro-RCI speculation full of holes.  And its not just Bootleg.  Read the posts from several RCI employees, particularly Anon, over at TimeshareTalk.  They same the same thing.
> 
> And with only one OBX resort still in developer sales, I know that all of the RCI rentals I see at other OBX resorts simply cannot be developer deposits. And that also shoots your theory full of holes.  There are a lot of RCI rentals out there at SOLD OUT resorts which CANNOT be developer inventory!



If that's true, then the RCI class action should be going swimmingly, if it were that easy to track.  Somehow, I doubt it.

In any event, what I have posed is a theory for how exchange companies can be viable in a weeks based exchange system.  Believe what you will. 

I can easily see how RCI executives made the decisions they did to divert developer weeks to the rental program.  It's simply more profitable.

Taking weeks out of the exchange system for rent is problematic at best.  As I have said multiple times, I do believe they are taking out some weeks to rent from the spacebank inappropriately.  What I don't know is how much it is and whether or not it is being done with criminal intent or just out of bad execution.  If I had to guess, I'd say bad execution.

I say it because it would be so very easy to bleed off developer weeks without raiding the spacebank and at the same time seriously crippling the exchange system.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 23, 2007)

janapur said:


> I would have to agree based on my own experience with "sold out" resorts at which I own. On several occasions, I have been unable to exchange back into my resorts. However, the RCI rep was delighted to tell me about the Extra Vacation I could rent.
> 
> Jana



That still doesn't prove it because RCI has many sources of rental weeks including weeks deposited into RCI Points and used for airline tickets.  Carolinian loathes this usage of weeks, but it is legitimate.

I do think that RCI is cheating.  But, I do not think they need to cheat at all in order for the RCI exchange system to degrade like it has over the last 5-10 years.  

If Cristal DeHaan were still running RCI and she lost all developer weeks, RCI exchangers would be hurting far more than they are today.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 23, 2007)

Basically, what you are revealing, Boca, is that the Weeks system has been somewhat of a pyramid scheme.  To keep people really happy with their exchanges (ie, to let scads of people trade up), you need unspoken for developer weeks to be inserted into the system.  That can be done as long as timesharing is growing.  But as it grows larger, the need for more and more developer weeks increases because there are so many more people now who want to trade up.  Ultimately, this system has to crash.  

Whether Wyndham decided to put an end to the game early by renting the developer weeks instead of allowing people to trade up or they chose to wait until the growth could no longer sustain the demand for trading up is irrelevant.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 23, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> That still doesn't prove it because RCI has many sources of rental weeks including weeks deposited into RCI Points and used for airline tickets....


True, but it is a bit more complicated than that.  Put yourself in the position of an RCI executive.  You have a mass deposit from a developer.  According to "supply and demand" if you chose to rent all of these weeks, the price will be low.  If you allow some of these weeks into the exchange system and take some deposits out in exchange, you can now spread the market on where the rentals occur (and make more money).  

I am not saying that this is what has happened (how would I know?), but I don't like theories that depend upon RCI executives being the dummest executives on Earth.  I am sure that at least some of them are capable of intelligence.


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 23, 2007)

*RedWeek*

Being one of the "originals" in the new RedWeek Exchange program, I have been in semi-constant communication with folks over at Redweek for about SIX WEEKS.

I recieved an email from one of them on Saturday evening. I was told that they (Redweek) are monitoring the TUG bulletin boards, and are hearing what the people are saying. Of course they are monitoring their own BB as well. Though, that doesn't mean that they will, or even can, make changes to suit all, they ARE listening. They also informed me that they will NOT respond on this BB.

I was also told by Redweek, "We have received a great response to exchange following our recent e-mail announcement. Good weeks are coming..." - RedWeek

Every accepted week deposited for RW points takes time to show up on their site (mine took two weeks). I beilieve that we will soon start to see those weeks showing up as available exchanges.



I know many of you have multiple timeshare weeks, as I do. What is wrong with a little change, or a little "gamble" as some of you call it? Let's jump in and make some deposits. At worst case, start with your least valuable week and work your way up in the future if things work out.

I know that my spring break 2008 ski week is available - if you want to go skiing!


----------



## PerryM (Jul 23, 2007)

*Buffoons R us*



"Roger" said:


> True, but it is a bit more complicated than that.  Put yourself in the position of an RCI executive.  You have a mass deposit from a developer.  According to "supply and demand" if you chose to rent all of these weeks, the price will be low.  If you allow some of these weeks into the exchange system and take some deposits out in exchange, you can now spread the market on where the rentals occur (and make more money).
> 
> I am not saying that this is what has happened (how would I know?), but I don't like theories that depend upon RCI executives being the dummest executives on Earth.  I am sure that at least some of them are capable of intelligence.




When RCI picked the barter system to implement timeshare reservations they assumed  many roles:
1)	They MUST accept ANY reservation
2)	They MUST accept developer weeks
3)	They MUST make exchanges that have rhyme and reason
4)	They MUST act in the best interests of ALL parties involved

This is impossible with the barter system they picked!

So what to do?  Well, make all the rules secret is one solution, constantly change rules to meet new situations is another, fudge exchanges is certainly an option, however making a fat profit for their stockholders is #1 and trumps all the above.

Instead of assuming that RCI is cunning and a master spy, I assume they are buffoons and I can exploit them very easily.

So to every evil plot someone brings up I assume RCI isn’t that smart – many here are giving them more credit than they deserve. 

All you have to do is to ask 12 average Americans who own a timeshare “Do you think that an exchange company should sell exchanges, instead of allowing members to exchange, and buy airline tickets for another RCI company?”  Every time I try to understate RCI’s business prowess I get yet another example of just how stupid they are.  Take advantage of this and stop fighting their stupidity!

So assume they are buffoons and not the devil and you will sleep better at night and exploit their system for your own family’s vacation needs.  I just don’t think they are that bright.





thinze3 said:


> Being one of the "originals" in the new RedWeek program, I have been in semi-constant communication with folks over at Redweek for about SIX WEEKS.
> 
> I recieved an email from one of them on Saturday evening. I was told that they (Redweek) are monitoring the TUG bulletin boards, and are hearing what the people are saying. Of course they are monitoring their own BB as well. Though, that doesn't mean that they will, or even can, make changes to suit all, they ARE listening. They also informed me that they will NOT respond on this BB.
> 
> ...



I assumed that the folks who own RW are smart and would read TUG - I don't assume that of II or RCI; no need to rock a boat that makes a bunch of money now.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 23, 2007)

*Buffoons are NOT us*



PerryM said:


> When RCI picked the barter system to implement timeshare reservations they assumed  many roles:
> 1)	They MUST accept ANY reservation
> 2)	They MUST accept developer weeks
> 3)	They MUST make exchanges that have rhyme and reason
> ...



Let's see what RW has decided to do (in response to the above):

1) They pick and choose reservations that are acceptable
2) They CAN NOT accept developer weeks - unless the developer is rewarding their employees with exchanges into competitor resorts
3) They are NOT involved with exchanges - they simply provide a venue to bring the interested parties together
4) They ONLY act in their best interests, this is capitalism and the other parties are free to participate or not

The reason all this works with RW is because they picked the right tools to allow owners to exchange reservations - a Point Based System based upon rental rates from a disinterested party.


----------



## PeelBoy (Jul 23, 2007)

*Made My First Exchange with Redweek*

Deposited Plantation Resort Myrtle Beach two bedroom July 4th week 2008 for 2017 RW points.

Minutes ago, confirmed reservation Hilton Craigendarroch, Ballater, Scotland, one bedroom October 4, 2008.  Points required is 1309.  

Cost analysis:

Bought Plantation Resort resale from ebay for $102.50, so I am not going to factor it into the cost analysis.

MF $630 per year.  Pro-rated two-third for 1309 RW points, so the cost is about $400.

Exchange fee $125 plus cancellation insurance $25, i.e. $150.

Total cost is $550, i.e. $80 per night for a Hilton brand name resort in Scotland where the nightly rate for October is like $180 to $220.

Hmmm.  I guessed I did the right thing.


----------



## Mel (Jul 23, 2007)

Perry, your post reminded me of Asimov's Law of Robotics.  RCI has to give cretian of their rules precedence over others, and we don't necessarily know the order they have chosen, but we can guess that rule #1 is based on the ficudiary responsibility to shareholder.  

1 - RCI has a LEGAL fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders
2 - RCI has a contractual responsilbility to developer-members
     (as long as that doesn't conflict with #1)
3 - RCI has a contractual responsibility to owner-members
     (as long as that doesn't conflict with #1 OR #2).

So RCI has a system where they must accept all weeks associated with member resorts.  If a resort agreement it ended, they are no longer required to accept new deposits from that resort, but honors all previously deposited weeks (see their disclosure guide where they mention a number of unafficilated resorts where they still have deposits).

They must accept these weeks whether they will be used by owner-members or not.  Owner-members will be given exchanges for said weeks, from the pool of deposits.  Note that 97% of exchange requests resulted in some form of exchange.  One would presume that the 3% of deposits that do not get used are the "worst" desposits - yet the owners of those weeks are still given exchanges.

Now, what happens with deposits from developer-members?

- some are used for bonus weeks.  Some developer pre-sell their weeks, but there will always be a supply of existing weeks owned by and deposited by the developers.  Those that are not pre-sold end up deposited for use by RCI (or II) and the resort is given bonus week certificates.  Some end up as incentives for depositing your week, other for taking a tour.  Note that these bonus weeks often have restrictions keeping you from exchangeing them for something of similar value to the underlying developer deposit.  The developers didn't care too much, because they were building the "value" of these weeks into their prices - getting paid by the buyers, and attracting new potential owners through RCI.

RCI did very well with this system - they had valuable incoming weeks from the developer, at little to no cost.  These were given largely as exchanges, allowing RCI to present a general ability for most owner-members to trade up incrementally on average.  Again, this was balanced by the often significant trade-down given to the bonus weeks (which did after all have a valuable underlying week).

Then comes along the internet, and much easier marketing.  The resorts see that they can probably make more with their own rental & marketing programs.  Why should the developer "give" all their inventory to RCI?  But RCI needs that inventory to satisfy the hunger for exchanges into these very new resorts.  To get those developer weeks, RCI must now share the wealth - pay the developers for their inventory, or provide some incentive to still deposit those weeks.  This will cost RCI, so now rather than providing as many bonus weeks,  RCI now rents some inventory - not the developer deposits which they need for exchanges, but other inventory they consider equivalent.  The bonus weeks that remain are mostly severely restricted in the form of one-plus-one weeks - for weeks that RCI can't seem to get rid of through either exchanges or rentals.

Much as we all hate the rentals, particularly of weeks they seeming should not be renting, it all falls apart of they don't, and here's why:

1 - If the developer still give their weeks to RCI, they will still be available as rentals, but will be far fewer weeks available as deposits.  Everybody who is clammoring over the availability of River Island weeks at Orange Lake - where do you suppose those came from.  Very few owners deposited them, because they were waiting for a chance to USE their new resort.  The same applies to my second timeshare - Escapes to Tropical Breeze in Panama City Beach.  It took 10 years to rebuild that resort, and the vast majority of owners who stayed will be using their week for years to come.  Few "traders" kept their week, most turned them in to the HOA who sold to Escapes.  Most exchanges will come from the Escapes developer inventory, not regular deposits.  I'm sure this is true of most new resorts.  Without those weeks in the bank, the value of all weeks going in and out must balance completely, so that average sense of trading up slightly diminishes.

2 - If the developer weeks all end up as rentals, the supply of rental inventory goes up, and the price goes down.  RCI income is reduced, and RCI is not living up to resposibility #1.  They must reduce what they offer to the developers, and run the risk that the developer will pull their inventory completely because it becomes more cost-effective to rent them themselves.

Mp you can't exchange in, because RCI has little inventory, and if you want to rent, you have to rent directly from the resort.  If you want a decent rental rate you will have to sit through a presentation.  The rental rates will stay high both as reassurance to potential new owners, and to make the "reduced rate" tour incentives look really good.  The marketing arm can "pay" rack rate for the weeks it gives out as incentives, since it's only an internal paper payment anyway.   It gets written off as a business expense on the other side anyway, and helps justfy even higher developer prices.



PerryM said:


> When RCI picked the barter system to implement timeshare reservations they assumed  many roles:
> 1)	They MUST accept ANY reservation
> 2)	They MUST accept developer weeks
> 3)	They MUST make exchanges that have rhyme and reason
> ...


----------



## PeelBoy (Jul 23, 2007)

Received the email confirmation of reservation from Redweek.

The second page is the Property Profile - regular information like confirmations from RCI or II.

The first page is more interesting:

The RedWeed logo is on top and DAE logo is also there.

The fine prints say:

Thank you for supporting RedWeek Exchange powered by Dial an Exchange.

If you have trouble at check-in, please contact the DAE office closest to you.

Both addresses of RedWeek and DAE are listed at the bottom.

I am not sure if RedWeek is a business plan/model for DAE to get rid of their blue/white weeks.


----------



## taffy19 (Jul 23, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Let's see what RW has decided to do (in response to the above):
> 
> 1) They pick and choose reservations that are acceptable
> 2) They CAN NOT accept developer weeks* - unless the developer is rewarding their employees with exchanges into competitor resorts*
> ...


Perry, I really enjoy reading your posts. You should be a writer. Have I read correctly that you are a Teacher or a Professor since you have mentioned "your students" in a few posts but you never say what type of students they are. Their classes should be far from dull.  

I always understand what you are trying to convey but I have a problem understanding your #3. Would you please explain? TIA.


----------



## taffy19 (Jul 23, 2007)

Mel said:


> 1 - RCI has a LEGAL fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders
> 2 - RCI has a contractual responsilbility to developer-members
> (as long as that doesn't conflict with #1)
> 3 - RCI has a contractual responsibility to owner-members
> (as long as that doesn't conflict with #1 OR #2).


Hardly possible to keep everyone happy here. I feel that the exchange members must be the least important to them.

What a great post and this whole topic too.


----------



## OnMedic (Jul 23, 2007)

There was a concern posted previous about a RW member with multiple dogs for deposit and the using the points to jump on a high demand week/location. I too can see this happening.

Does anyone think it feasable to implement a limitation to the trade-up.... something like no higher then 1/2 star above the rating of their highest rated resort (per RW user ratings). Nothing you can do about season I don't think, but at least it is fairly like for like quality resorts.


----------



## taffy19 (Jul 23, 2007)

Why would anyone be trading up? It would take more weeks to save up for the resort of choice and a person, who gets many points for one single week, is able to take several weeks for less points. It works both ways. 

You can do the same for exchanging a higher demand season to a lower demand season or visa versa. Isn't this what the point system is about and is much fairer to anyone?

RedWeek can change the amount of points that they want to offer any time because of changes in supply and demand so that is why their offer of points is good for a short time only which makes sense to me as demand is changing constantly. How many times have I read that the RCI point-based system is stagnant or unfair because some resorts get higher points offered because the developers are still selling there. This to me is very unfair to resorts that were sold out already

Also, week owners, who like to go to a floating system, can do so now without having to pay the high conversion fees to RCI or the developers. 

I hope RedWeek can pull it off. The only thing that they never can offer is shorter vacations than a week and that is most likely why they cannot accept point-based system resorts.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 23, 2007)

iconnections said:


> .... How many times have I read that the RCI point-based system is stagnant or unfair because some resorts get higher points offered because the developers are still selling there. This to me is very unfair to resorts that were sold out already.... [/FONT][/SIZE]


While I agree with most of your post, Emmy, we part company on this one.  You have read this many times, but it all goes back to one poster.

Economically, this would make no sense for RCI.  If they overpointed some resorts (developer resorts), they would be left with a surplus of their units when people trade.  (People would all be taking the lower point alternatives leaving them with untradeable developer weeks.)  Put differently, this claim suggests that RCI has decided to subsidize the developers. Why would RCI choose to lose money to help developers?

The main piece of evidence offered in support of the above theory was Vacation Villages in Orlando.  They did get more points than other resorts in the area.  That ignores two things, however.  Some of the resorts that they got more points for were also developer resorts.  (If the prejudice is in favor of developers, why not all developers?)  Secondly, Vacation Village sells lockouts.  If you look at the Points catalogue, lock outs consistently get about thirty percent more than comparable sized non-lockout units.  That is because RCI then turns around and offers them as separate units.  The total of the one bedroom plus the studio or the two one bedrooms units always equals the point total for the separate units.  That is what explains the "smoking gun" showing how developers fare better.


----------



## icydog (Jul 23, 2007)

thinze3 said:


> My deposit at Christie Lodge took about 2 weeks to show up. Redweek said that the delay was with my resort. I believe them, because the people at Christie Lodge are not usually very helpful to me as an owner.
> 
> Anyhow, it did show up and is available for the same 1800 points they gave me.


 
Your Christie Lodge was one of the only resorts that I saw on RW that was any good. I'm seeing so so resorts so far and I am not interested in being a Redweek lab rat. I lost out trying SFX and I am not going to make that mistake again.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 23, 2007)

Vacation Villas at Parkway was, most significantly, one of the two resorts, both Gold Crowns in overbuilt Orlando, which consistently had the most oversupply in the entire RCI system according to RCI employee Bootleg and his observations on RCI's computers.  In a system built on supply and demand, its point value would be on the low side not the high side.  This is one of the more glaring examples of pandering to developers.

In my own neck of the woods, it is also very obvious.  The only points resorts on the OBX are the Barrier Island resorts.  There Kitty Hawk resort has easily the lowest demand of any OBX timeshare because it is so far from the beach.  It is also the only one still in developer sales.  On the other hand, their Duck resort has the highest demand on the OBX after OBBC I and II.  RCI Points stands market factors on their head by giving more points to the much lower demand Kitty Hawk resort still in developer sales than a comparable unit/week at higher demand sold out Duck.  

The numbers racket of RCI Points is riddled with corruption, mostly based on pandering to developers.





"Roger" said:


> While I agree with most of your post, Emmy, we part company on this one.  You have read this many times, but it all goes back to one poster.
> 
> Economically, this would make no sense for RCI.  If they overpointed some resorts (developer resorts), they would be left with a surplus of their units when people trade.  (People would all be taking the lower point alternatives leaving them with untradeable developer weeks.)  Put differently, this claim suggests that RCI has decided to subsidize the developers. Why would RCI choose to lose money to help developers?
> 
> The main piece of evidence offered in support of the above theory was Vacation Villages in Orlando.  They did get more points than other resorts in the area.  That ignores two things, however.  Some of the resorts that they got more points for were also developer resorts.  (If the prejudice is in favor of developers, why not all developers?)  Secondly, Vacation Village sells lockouts.  If you look at the Points catalogue, lock outs consistently get about thirty percent more than comparable sized non-lockout units.  That is because RCI then turns around and offers them as separate units.  The total of the one bedroom plus the studio or the two one bedrooms units always equals the point total for the separate units.  That is what explains the "smoking gun" showing how developers fare better.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 23, 2007)

''Trading up'' is one of the broken records we hear from points advocates, but the systematic trading up is not in Weeks, it is in Points.  One of the reasons some of those who own in overbuilt areas like Points so much is that it ignores factors of supply and demand to overpoint weeks there.  The Weeks system shows what many weeks there are really worth.  A blue week most anywhere can trade in much of the year in the overbuilt areas because supply and demand factors are equivalent.  That is not a trade up, but an even trade, regardless of whether RCI employs the further fiction of saying the overbuilt area is ''all red''.  Points permits a built in trade up regime for owners in overbuilt areas.

Another clever fiction of some who bemoan ''trades up'' in Weeks  is that a last minute trade to a week in what is normally a high demand resort is a ''trade up''.  Not so!  Anyone familiar with the leisure travel industry knows that last minute inventory is distressed inventory, and therefore of lower value, whatever its original value was.  These are, after all, perishable goods with no value after their use date.  RCI gives lower trading power to a last minute deposit, so it makes perfect sense that they assign lower trading power to trade for last minute inventory.  Both a deposit and an exchange at the last minute have lower value because they are close to expiring when they would have no value.




iconnections said:


> Why would anyone be trading up? It would take more weeks to save up for the resort of choice and a person, who gets many points for one single week, is able to take several weeks for less points. It works both ways.
> 
> You can do the same for exchanging a higher demand season to a lower demand season or visa versa. Isn't this what the point system is about and is much fairer to anyone?
> 
> ...


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 23, 2007)

icydog said:


> Your Christie Lodge was one of the only resorts that I saw on RW that was any good. I'm seeing so so resorts so far and I am not interested in being a Redweek lab rat. I lost out trying SFX and I am not going to make that mistake again.




Redweek informed me that there are more good weeks coming. There have been a few already, but they didn't last long.

Think about it. Everytime a "good" week hits RCI or II it is taken instantly, because there is someone who has a trade request waiting. Example, you will never, ever see a good Marriott week as there are too many people waiting. But you can see dozens of "not-so-good" weeks.

Redweek is sort of at a disadvantage because we can all SEE those "not-so-good" weeks. The "good" weeks get snapped up immediately, never to be seen by most.

I have pointed this out to Redweek in one of my communications. I stressed that public perception is key, and posting a bunch of "not-so-good" weeks may actually be detrimental.

They totally understand and are working on making the hole process more visible if possible.

They are also devising a way to let early deposits have first dibs on weeks - kind of a higher trading power, if you will. I hope this works out, because I sent my CL week over SIX weeks ago.

I'm sure details are coming soon.


----------



## OnMedic (Jul 23, 2007)

Why not part with traditional thinking of legacy systems. I for one would rather trade for a fair quality and would prefer to have that available to me rather then having someone that went out a purchased a bunch of low cost low MF properties to trade up.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 23, 2007)

OnMedic said:


> Why not part with traditional thinking of legacy systems. I for one would rather trade for a fair quality and would prefer to have that available to me rather then having someone that went out a purchased a bunch of low cost low MF properties to trade up.



The main driver of demand is location, with quality being secondary.  I would prefer having locations of comparable demand availible to me rather than having someone from an area that is overloaded with timeshares trading up to a higher demand location.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 23, 2007)

*TKD*



iconnections said:


> Perry, I really enjoy reading your posts. *You should be a writer*. Have I read correctly that you are a Teacher or a Professor since you have mentioned "your students" in a few posts but you never say what type of students they are. Their classes should be far from dull.
> 
> I always understand what you are trying to convey but I have a problem understanding your #3. Would you please explain? TIA.



Thanks; as an engineer I really take that as a compliment.

I trade stocks, on line, during the day and from 3 PM - 8 PM teach Tae Kwon Do to 300+ students in a week at 2 Martial Arts Schools in St Louis.  I teach 4 year olds up to 65 year olds; kids to lawyers to doctors to pilots to UPS drivers, you name it and I have them as a student.  I started back in 1994 with my son who is also now a Master Instructor and is working on his Industrial Engineering degree and MBA at Mizzou.  I really love teaching; I have a million stories.

#2 means that developers should not be allowed to deposit units into the RW system if debits = credits.  The only reason Marriott should be depositing units is if they want someone in their company to exchange into another timeshare unit.

#3 means that RW never actually decides which person gets which reservation - they created a place where owners can deposit units for RW Points and use them later for one or more exchanges.  This is completely different than II or RCI - they are deciding who gets what and the developers have thrown in strings that get all tangled up with the exchanges.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 24, 2007)

*Gertrude knows...*



OnMedic said:


> Why not part with traditional thinking of legacy systems. I for one would rather trade for a fair quality and would prefer to have that available to me rather then having someone that went out a purchased a bunch of low cost low MF properties to trade up.



The legacy systems, II and RCI, are based upon barter and the currency systems like RCI Points, WorldMark, and RW don't have the strange concept of "Trade up" associated with them.

Think of it this way - you grab Gertrude, your 3 year old Canadian goose you've been raising, and march down to the local fruit stand.  You want 4 watermelons, 100 feet of barbwire and 1 gallon of gas for your lawn mower.  You know Gertrude isn't worth the extra gallon of gas but you use that to haggle.  Eventually you strike up a bargain and Gertrude is off to the farmer's table for dinner and you got everything you wanted - even the gallon of gas; thanks Gertrude; you "traded up".


A currency based system has Gertrude worth $25, 4 watermelons at $5 each, 100' of barbwire at $10 and a gallon of gas at $3.  You sell Gertrude for $25 and then decide what to buy - the haggling over Gertrude never takes place and in fact another farmer bought her.

Use a barter system if you can "trade up" and a currency system if you want flexibility and exchanges that are justified by price.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 24, 2007)

*dogs pooping....*



Carolinian said:


> ''Trading up'' is one of the broken records we hear from points advocates, but the systematic trading up is not in Weeks, it is in Points.  One of the reasons some of those who own in overbuilt areas like Points so much is that it ignores factors of supply and demand to overpoint weeks there.  The Weeks system shows what many weeks there are really worth.  A blue week most anywhere can trade in much of the year in the overbuilt areas because supply and demand factors are equivalent.  That is not a trade up, but an even trade, regardless of whether RCI employs the further fiction of saying the overbuilt area is ''all red''.  Points permits a built in trade up regime for owners in overbuilt areas.
> 
> Another clever fiction of some who bemoan ''trades up'' in Weeks  is that a last minute trade to a week in what is normally a high demand resort is a ''trade up''.  Not so!  Anyone familiar with the leisure travel industry knows that last minute inventory is distressed inventory, and therefore of lower value, whatever its original value was.  These are, after all, perishable goods with no value after their use date.  RCI gives lower trading power to a last minute deposit, so it makes perfect sense that they assign lower trading power to trade for last minute inventory.  Both a deposit and an exchange at the last minute have lower value because they are close to expiring when they would have no value.




*I view the 59-day II fire sale event as proof positive that their barter system is a failure* - many/most of those reservations sat there for up to 10 months - no one wanted them.  II was forced to take these dogs and they just pooped out - no exchange.  The same goes for the 45-day window at RCI

So yes, the fire sale allows II to complete lots of doggy exchanges that would not and did not happen up until that point.  The secret Trading Power goes to zero but there are still developer strings attached to many of these dogs.


Hopefully RW will keep the dogs out and only allow units that are fun places to go and to exchange into.  But even here, there will be units that no one wants and what will RW do?  Will they keep the values the same or hold a fire sale too?  If so what will they do with debits not equalling credits anymore?

We must wait and see; I don't think RW has told us what they will do.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 24, 2007)

*Mine's bigger than yours...*



thinze3 said:


> Redweek informed me that there are more good weeks coming. There have been a few already, but they didn't last long.
> 
> Think about it. Everytime a "good" week hits RCI or II it is taken instantly, because there is someone who has a trade request waiting. Example, you will never, ever see a good Marriott week as there are too many people waiting. But you can see dozens of "not-so-good" weeks.
> 
> ...



This is why RW must publish a list of ALL exchanges made during a month - show the folks what came in and what went out and how fast.

I am looking forward to placing on-going searches and have them filled automatically by the computer.  I know that the temptation of "First come, first served" is something programmers default to in tie-breaking decisions.  *I propose a "Customer loyalty" tie breaker *- if a new deposit satisfies multiple searches the tie breaker is based upon the number of RW currently on deposit in the various members accounts.

E.g. A week 52 ski week is deposited for 5,000 RW Points and 3 members have on-going searches for it.  Who get's it?  Simple, the member who has the largest number of RW Points currently in their account.  If this still results in a tie then the person who became a RW member first gets the exchange.

Customer loyalty - it's an old fashioned idea that still makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 24, 2007)

No, it is merely proof that timeshare is part of the leisure travel market.  Indeed, it appears that RCI is in the process of creating a similar last minute fire sale in RCI Points in the North American market, something they have already done from the beginning with RCI Points in the European market.

And many of the weeks in this period are not bad weeks at all, but late deposits or last minute cancellations.  Or perhaps they are from overbuilt areas and not really worth the ''red'' designation that RCI tries to hang on them.

RW also will need to avoid being overloaded with overbuilt areas.  Any system needs to keep a constant eye on supply and demand, and it is the supply side that has to be watched with the overbuilt areas.  The problem here is inventory control, since there is also good demand for the overbuilt areas, just not enough for the glut of timeshare there.



PerryM said:


> *I view the 59-day II fire sale event as proof positive that their barter system is a failure* - many/most of those reservations sat there for up to 10 months - no one wanted them.  II was forced to take these dogs and they just pooped out - no exchange.  The same goes for the 45-day window at RCI
> 
> So yes, the fire sale allows II to complete lots of doggy exchanges that would not and did not happen up until that point.  The secret Trading Power goes to zero but there are still developer strings attached to many of these dogs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 24, 2007)

Points systems are not ''currency based''.  They are not based on dollars, pounds, francs, lei, rands, pesos, yen, baht, rials, dinars, rupees, or any other genuine currency.  They are based on a rigged and frozen private internal value system.  Unlike currencies which float with the market (and with the performance of the US dollar in the last few years ''sink'' might be a better word than ''float''), points are generally fixed and forgotten.  Indeed if there is any valid analogy to points in the economic world, it would probably be the command economies of the old Soviet bloc where those in charge dictated what everything was worth rather than the market.  That is one of the inherent anti-consumer flaws of existing points systems.  It is actually one that the RW platform COULD solve if they choose to, since there system is not published with paper and ink and is therefore the only points system I have seen where they could have the flexibility to let values float with the market.

If you believe points are a currency, I suggest you try taking them down to any currency exchange office and see if they will give you ANY real currency for them.  Good luck!

Trading up is a big part of RCI Points.  It is programmed in, from a number of angles including 1) deliberate overpointing of resorts still in developer sales, 2) overpointing of overbuilt areas, 3) overaveraging in the points tables at points resorts that signifiacntly overvalue some weeks in relation to others (for example, giving the same point value to a same size beach week in the same resort area and resort for a mid-August week 33 and a mid-October 43 - those weeks would NOT have the same value in Weeks which has a more flexible valuation system), and 4) the fraudulent generic grids for Points members raiding Weeks which dramatically undervalue the best resorts and weeks in the Weeks system.

Most of the alleged ''trading up'' in Weeks is just the market functioning, saying some weeks are not really worth what some thought.  Its pure old supply and demand.  It is only common sense if there is more of something in the system than there is demand, the value goes down until the supply and demand curves meet.

As to weeks being left over with no takers, the liklihood of that is much higher in Points.  With its rigged values, there is no adjustment for weak demand.  The value stays the same even when the market says it is overvalued due to oversupply.  Of course, RCI loves that because then they declare these weeks ''surplus'' to use to feed their rental empire.  A points system allows RCI to rig the numbers to create an ''excess'' anywhere they want to in the system to use for rental.  That is the huge inherent conflict of interest in an exchange company running both a points based exchange system and a rental operation.

The fleixibility of the exchange mechanism in Weeks compared to the rigidity of Points is what makes Weeks the more consumer friendly exchange system.




PerryM said:


> The legacy systems, II and RCI, are based upon barter and the currency systems like RCI Points, WorldMark, and RW don't have the strange concept of "Trade up" associated with them.
> 
> Think of it this way - you grab Gertrude, your 3 year old Canadian goose you've been raising, and march down to the local fruit stand.  You want 4 watermelons, 100 feet of barbwire and 1 gallon of gas for your lawn mower.  You know Gertrude isn't worth the extra gallon of gas but you use that to haggle.  Eventually you strike up a bargain and Gertrude is off to the farmer's table for dinner and you got everything you wanted - even the gallon of gas; thanks Gertrude; you "traded up".
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Jul 24, 2007)

*500,000,000,000 Dinars for $4.95 - great currency!*



Carolinian said:


> Points systems are not ''currency based''.  They are not based on dollars, pounds, francs, lei, rands, pesos, yen, baht, rials, dinars, rupees, or any other genuine currency.  They are based on a rigged and frozen private internal value system.  Unlike currencies which float with the market (and with the performance of the US dollar in the last few years ''sink'' might be a better word than ''float''), points are generally fixed and forgotten.  Indeed if there is any valid analogy to points in the economic world, it would probably be the command economies of the old Soviet bloc where those in charge dictated what everything was worth rather than the market.  That is one of the inherent anti-consumer flaws of existing points systems.  It is actually one that the RW platform COULD solve if they choose to, since there system is not published with paper and ink and is therefore the only points system I have seen where they could have the flexibility to let values float with the market.
> 
> If you believe points are a currency, I suggest you try taking them down to any currency exchange office and see if they will give you ANY real currency for them.  Good luck!
> 
> ...



RCI Points is a great example of "Don't do what I do" - I can't defend the implementation of RCI Points - it is a corrupt system.  It's corrupt in many ways:

1) NOT 100% transparent
2) NOT based upon a disinterested 3rd party to establish "Worth" of units
3) NOT based upon another currency system like $1 = 1 RW Point
4) NOT a pure exchange system - integrates RCI's travel company and causes problems
5) NOT independent of the developer - many owners paid $2,000+ to deposit their unit and the charge is really just $199

So RCI Points has many inefficiencies to exploit and thus folks should look at joining.  However I don't defend their horrible implementation.


Currency:
Just because a government, politicians, and lawyers create a currency does NOT mean it is a currency.  Here is a perfect example - I have one of these on my office wall to remind me that governments, for the most part, are insane.

When I buy anything now, be it a hamburger or a timeshare I pay via a piece of plastic that is NOT issued by any government but private banks.  My Marriott Reward Card is the currency I use and I get interest - Marriott Reward Points worth 2% of the purchase price.  So although the "Full faith of our Bureaucrats, Politicians, and Lawyers" is the foundation of our US currency, I use Chase Bank currency which gives me 2% interest that Uncle Sam's currency does not.

If you don't believe that my VISA is a currency just try to buy a hamburger with a business card - they are about the same size.  The VISA has replaced the US dollar as a currency - there will be more abstract currencies in the future as cell phones replace the credit card as the chosen currency.  In Finland you buy your Coke or Pepsi NOT with government issued coins/paper but with your cell phone.  Currency is in the mind of the beholder - it's that simple.  

RW has created their own currency that works in it's universe - that's all that matters.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 24, 2007)

Good example.  If currency exchange worked like a timeshare points system, the old Yugoslavian/Serbia dinar would not have been allowed to float/sink to its true value.  Instead an arbitrary exchange rate would have been set and frozen no matter what the market said it was really worth.

BTW when I was in Belgrade earlier this year, there was a souvenir vendor at the entrance to the Kalodran fortress selling those banknotes to tourists for $5.

The Serbian dinar has been at the opposite end of the spectrum from the safe and stable Swiss franc, but the key is that the currency market allows values to float.

A credit card is only a means of using a real currency like dollars or pounds.  Please let me know when you find a credit card that you can put in an ATM machine anywhere and withdraw RCI points or any other timeshare points.  Again, good luck!


----------



## PerryM (Jul 24, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Good example.  If currency exchange worked like a timeshare points system, the old Yugoslavian/Serbia dinar would not have been allowed to float/sink to its true value.  Instead an arbitrary exchange rate would have been set and frozen no matter what the market said it was really worth.
> 
> BTW when I was in Belgrade earlier this year, there was a souvenir vendor at the entrance to the Kalodran fortress selling those banknotes to tourists for $5.
> 
> ...



Well I have more faith in 2,500 RW Points than 500,000,000,000 Dinars!

BTW, I'm waiting for Switzerland or some Caribbean country to issue Internet Money backed by gold, silver, platinum or some other metal.  Then when I flip open my cell phone at the grocery store I can pay in US dollars, Swiss Francs, or Internet ounces of gold.

Imagine, private individuals will be able to bypass their government's definition of currency and trade in gold again.  That day is coming and I don't think the politicians will be able to stop it this time around.

So I spend each night counting my 2,500 RW Points and how much pleasure they will give our family over the years.  (RW don't let me down)

P.S.
If I were a betting man, and I am, look for PayPal to make inroads in this area.  EBay is world wide and deals in many currencies via PayPal.  How long before they just issue PayPal Gold Dollars and do away with all the crazy currencies that get in the way of global commerce?

PayPal has 100,000,000+ members - they are taking on the size of a superpower in terms of currency if they want.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 24, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> ''Trading up'' is one of the broken records we hear from points advocates, but the systematic trading up is not in Weeks, it is in Points.



It's not a broken record from Points advocates, Trading up is THE fundamental underlying strategy of weeks based exchange for knowledgable timesharers.

Anyone who buys a so-called tiger trader does so for the trade up value.  They don't buy it because they are looking for an even trade.

I am perplexed that you don't understand this concept.


----------



## e.bram (Jul 24, 2007)

The big problem with RW and RCI is all they get is dog subprime weeks(it is either primeor its not). The prime week owners mostly use or rent. The same is true for the developer points. the owners who are lucky enough in the points lottery to get a prime use or rent. Then both subprime owners deposit and hope to exchange for a prime week. Rarely will happen.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 24, 2007)

thinze3 said:


> Being one of the "originals" in the new RedWeek Exchange program, I have been in semi-constant communication with folks over at Redweek for about SIX WEEKS.
> 
> I recieved an email from one of them on Saturday evening. I was told that they (Redweek) are monitoring the TUG bulletin boards, and are hearing what the people are saying. Of course they are monitoring their own BB as well. Though, that doesn't mean that they will, or even can, make changes to suit all, they ARE listening. They also informed me that they will NOT respond on this BB.
> 
> ...



I have no doubt that RW will receive many deposits after their initial email blast to customers.  It will be interesting to see how many deposits they get.  If you contrast RW with say SFX, SFX launches a significant marketing effort every year to get people to deposit early and they offer those depositers 3 for 1 exchanges for doing so.  In other words, 2 bonus weeks.  They obviously pay for those bonus weeks with free developer deposits.  Will RW do the same?

I am NOT an early adopter of technology.  I own an ipod, but I won't buy an iphone until the second or third generation even though I want one now.

I'll use RW when it either achieves a viable level or there is an exchange there that I want.

I wonder how many of those deposits are "provisional deposits"?  I wonder how many provisional deposits result in provisional exchanges?

I hope you get something special for being an early adopter.  You deserve it for the risk you are taking.  Perhaps a charter member certificate.  When they get really big, you can say you were one of the "first"


----------



## PerryM (Jul 24, 2007)

*Does insanity rule RW?*



e.bram said:


> *The big problem with RW and RCI is all they get is dog subprime weeks(it is either primeor its not).* The prime week owners mostly use or rent. The same is true for the developer points. the owners who are lucky enough in the points lottery to get a prime use or rent. Then both subprime owners deposit and hope to exchange for a prime week. Rarely will happen.




This is NOT true for RW - they decide if a week is a dog and reject it.  RCI does NOT have that option and a reason RW can dominate the industry if they decide to implement it correctly.

*I am very concerned about a "Provisional Deposit" that has NO definition in a pure Point based system. * Is this the first hint that RW can't implement a Point based system without cheating?  I'm beginning to get an uneasy feeling here.

RW drop the "Provisional Deposit" this is insanity and who ever is advising you is insane too.

P.S.
RW freeze the rule book - we can't play your game if you constantly change the rules.  That's fine for II and RCI since they need to do that in order to make their barter system work - you don't need to cheat.

You need to publish the rules and promise not to change them - EVER, unless you give 1 year notice of a rule change.  This is not hard and the rules can be printed on a small card suitable for framing.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 24, 2007)

PeelBoy said:


> Deposited Plantation Resort Myrtle Beach two bedroom July 4th week 2008 for 2017 RW points.
> 
> Minutes ago, confirmed reservation Hilton Craigendarroch, Ballater, Scotland, one bedroom October 4, 2008.  Points required is 1309.
> 
> ...



Good for you.  You got something worthwhile.  I think you are the first confirmed exchanger on this BBS of RW.  Congratulations.

If you believe you did the right thing for yourself, then you did.  That's all that really matters.

As a thought exercise, have you considered the following?

1) The unit you got was probably a DAE unit.

2) DAE has an anything in, gets anything out exchange system.  

3) 3000 Worldmark credits can be rented for about $180 and will get you a blue studio unit that you can deposit into DAE.

4) DAE has an exchange fee of $115 plus $20 for cancel protection

5) Total cost of exchange:
    - upfront capital:  $0, far less than your $102.50 plus closing costs.
    - total fees: $315.  well below $550.
    - no future liability of maintenance fees.

The main point here is that if this unit is joint DAE and RW inventory, it may be more cost effective to get the exact same unit on the DAE side using a trade up strategy.


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 24, 2007)

*Plantation Resort*



rcnet said:


> Plantation Resorts, Surfside Beach, SC





RCNET

Tell me about your resort. I may take it off Redweek's site as an exchange.

Thanks


----------



## e.bram (Jul 24, 2007)

PerryM:
SFX is fussy about their acceptances and they don't dominate the industry. Since most of the weeks in TS are subprime(~80%), if you do not accept them you can't(by defination) dominate the industry.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 24, 2007)

*Why ignore a huge market segment????*



e.bram said:


> PerryM:
> SFX is fussy about their acceptances and they don't dominate the industry. Since most of the weeks in TS are subprime(~80%), if you do not accept them you can't(by defination) dominate the industry.




RW should have asked a simple question:
*"What can we do that no one else can do?"*

It's simple - there is a HUGE market for 2BR Prime timeshares reservations.  That's the market they should have attacked first and left all the scraps for later.

Right now the week 52 Marriott ski week owner or the 4th of July Maui Ocean Club Marriott owner is breaking their beautiful 2BR units into scraps - rent the 1BR for cash on RedWeek/MyResortNetwork and deposit the studio side into II.

No Marriott or Westin owner is going to deposit a prime holiday week as a 2BR into ANY exchange system - that's the market RW should have gone after.

They have the eMail records of all the folks who list the prime high end units and they should have just rented those weeks to prime their fledgling Point system.

Once they established the high end market they will have lots of attention and lots of folks flocking to them for exchanges.

Marriott does not have a way for high end owner to exchange reservations - Marriott dumped exchanges into II's lap and this is the market RW should have gone after - all those high end Marriott and Westin and Disney owners - ignore the plain Janes until much later.

But NOOOOO, "go after the average stuff" seems to be their motto over at RW.

P.S.
RW you should be contacting the Marriott, Westin, Disney owners direct and wooing them to rent their 2BR units to you - you pay cash to get the ball rolling.  Depending on another exchange company for their scraps is insanity.


----------



## djyamyam (Jul 24, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> As a thought exercise, have you considered the following?
> 
> 1) The unit you got was probably a DAE unit.
> 
> ...


 
BB, there's a flaw in your logic as you need to be a WM owner in order to rent and deposit those WM points.  So add ~$43000 to the cost of that as your upfront capital.  Peelboy only spent ~$500 of upfront capital.  Amoritized over a number of years, and the cross-over line meets.  But until then, Peelboy's deal is better.


----------



## rcnet (Jul 24, 2007)

*Treat it like a Savings Account: Interest rates.*

One of the things that I would do if I was RW would be to treat the accounts that people have as "savings accounts".  That means that the sooner you deposit an exchange, the sooner you could start earning an "interest rate".  That would obviously incentivize people to get off the fence and deposit something.  Obviously, the interest rate could be adjusted over time, just like in real life, so that if you have too many people depositing (what a problem!), then you could lower the interest rate.  As long as you kept the interest rate really low (5% per month, let's say), then you wouldn't have to worry too much about points "inflation".  

Somebody that eagerly deposits their good week early, and patiently waits for a nice resort to show up would get rewarded for their "first mover" status.

Just a thought.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 24, 2007)

e.bram said:


> The big problem with RW and RCI is all they get is dog subprime weeks(it is either primeor its not). The prime week owners mostly use or rent. The same is true for the developer points. the owners who are lucky enough in the points lottery to get a prime use or rent. Then both subprime owners deposit and hope to exchange for a prime week. Rarely will happen.



I disagree with this.  There are a lot of really great exchanges in RCI.  I love their exchange system.  I rarely see dogs.  

Prime week owners mostly don't know how to rent their weeks.  There are not many weeks for rent at any of our resorts.  They do deposit Hawaii weeks and exchange into Orlando.  Strange but true.  They believe that Orlando is an equal, great trade.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 24, 2007)

*Don't lay an egg RW...*



rcnet said:


> One of the things that I would do if I was RW would be to treat the accounts that people have as "savings accounts".  That means that the sooner you deposit an exchange, the sooner you could start earning an "interest rate".  That would obviously incentivize people to get off the fence and deposit something.  Obviously, the interest rate could be adjusted over time, just like in real life, so that if you have too many people depositing (what a problem!), then you could lower the interest rate.  As long as you kept the interest rate really low (5% per month, let's say), then you wouldn't have to worry too much about points "inflation".
> 
> Somebody that eagerly deposits their good week early, and patiently waits for a nice resort to show up would get rewarded for their "first mover" status.
> 
> Just a thought.



Done correctly (Debits=Credits) that is a viable idea.


The “Chicken ‘N Egg” problem – unless addressed it RW will lay an egg!

RW can attack this problem many ways:
1)	Encourage a “Loyalty Program”
2)	Issue vouchers
3)	Permanent “early bird” feature
4)	Issue FREE insurance
5)	Lotteries

*Loyalty Programs:*
Nobody seems to do this anymore.  If I take the huge gamble of depositing a unit and see nothing to exchange for I want to be remembered somehow.  That could mean I’m a Gold RW member and I get some free stuff like access to chat-rooms, phone numbers for RW insiders.  How about a free RW membership for the rest of my life?

*Issue Vouchers:*
If I take the gamble of early deposits then I could get a “1 free exchange” or “50% off the next exchange”.  Maybe make it active only 3 months.

*Permanent “early bird” feature:*
I should get a permanent 25% discount for all future exchange fees.  Or 50% off all future membership fees or discounts on renting or selling listings.

*Issue FREE insurance:*
Since there are going to be start up problems the first 500 folks to make deposits should get FREE RW insurance against things that could go wrong in the first year of operation.

*Lotteries:*
For every 1,000 RW Points deposited I get a lottery ticket good for 3,000 or so RW Points that will be given away each week or month.

All of this are marketing gimmicks that are used all the time by other companies – why not on RW?


----------



## wbtimesharer (Jul 24, 2007)

PerryM said:


> *I view the 59-day II fire sale event as proof positive that their barter system is a failure* - many/most of those reservations sat there for up to 10 months - no one wanted them.  II was forced to take these dogs and they just pooped out - no exchange.  The same goes for the 45-day window at RCI
> 
> So yes, the fire sale allows II to complete lots of doggy exchanges that would not and did not happen up until that point.  The secret Trading Power goes to zero but there are still developer strings attached to many of these dogs.
> 
> ...




What exactly is a dog.  Isn't the definition of  a great timesharer relative to the timesharer's personal taste.  If RW starts rejecting units because they are dogs compared to other resorts, then it will only be allowing Disney units, Manhatten club, and maybe a couple of Marriots.  Wow, that'll bring in the business.

I rather like playing in the II/RCI world, where the elite ruling class of owners don't define the rules.  

Bill


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 24, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> It's not a broken record from Points advocates, Trading up is THE fundamental underlying strategy of weeks based exchange for knowledgable timesharers.
> 
> Anyone who buys a so-called tiger trader does so for the trade up value.  They don't buy it because they are looking for an even trade.
> 
> I am perplexed that you don't understand this concept.



A tiger trader is powerful because it has relatively low supply vs. high demand.  Those are the fundamental drivers of the market and also of the Weeks based exchange system which is market based.  ''Quality'' is but a secondary driver, and those who fail to understand that may think something is a trade up when it is not.  In virtually any beach oriented resort area, for example, a standard resort that is on the beach is going to beat a Gold Crown where you have to drive to the beach in demand, hands down.  One buys a high demand, low supply week to trade to other high demand, low supply weeks, and that IS an even trade.

Some newbies think they are getting a trade up when they trade a blue weeks into a ''red'' week in an overbuilt area or in off season ''red'' like hurricane season in the Caribbean.  Again, the supply and demand factors of the market say that is an even trade.

If you want to see  a real trade up, go to the Points system, like giving a mid-October white week 43 on the OBX for a bright red mid-August week 33 at the same OBX resort.  It is extremely unlikely that you could ever make a trade up like that in the Weeks system unless it was a last minute trade, but the Points system allows you to do it everyday there where it is programed into the numbers racket, as long as a week 33 owner is foolish enough to join RCI Points.

I am perplexed that you do not seem to understand the concept of market forces.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 24, 2007)

*Who knew?*



brennumtimesharer said:


> What exactly is a dog.  Isn't the definition of  a great timesharer relative to the timesharer's personal taste.  If RW starts rejecting units because they are dogs compared to other resorts, then it will only be allowing Disney units, Manhatten club, and maybe a couple of Marriots.  Wow, that'll bring in the business.
> 
> I rather like playing in the II/RCI world, where the elite ruling class of owners don't define the rules.
> 
> Bill



Market niche is key for going up against the Wal-Mart of timeshare exchange companies - RCI.  RCI is TWICE as big as ALL other exchange companies combined - you can't go head to head with them.

We love to shop at Trader Joes - they are a boutique grocery store that doesn't sell ONE item that Wal-Mart super stores do or your local grocery store chain.  They offer better quality, and cheaper prices - who knew?  (I love their Two Buck Chuck wines - winner of Double Gold Medals in California)

So RW needs to sit down and set their sights on something RCI does not handle and even II.  Once they carve out a niche they can look at expanding - although that niche might be exactly what makes them a success and not what everyone else is doing.

So far I think they are searching for ideas and that's why I'm throwing them up against the wall as fast as I can - before RW hits the fan.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 24, 2007)

e.bram said:


> PerryM:
> SFX is fussy about their acceptances and they don't dominate the industry. Since most of the weeks in TS are subprime(~80%), if you do not accept them you can't(by defination) dominate the industry.



On the OBX, 90% of summer owners bought to use and do not use exchange companies, and only about 10% do.  There are more exchange oriented owners in shoulder and off seasons (about 30% in those seasons), and that is where the volume is for an exchange company.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 24, 2007)

*My definition of "Tiger Trader" - barely alive...*



Carolinian said:


> A tiger trader is powerful because it has relatively low supply vs. high demand.  Those are the fundamental drivers of the market and also of the Weeks based exchange system which is market based.  ''Quality'' is but a secondary driver, and those who fail to understand that may think something is a trade up when it is not.  In virtually any beach oriented resort area, for example, a standard resort that is on the beach is going to beat a Gold Crown where you have to drive to the beach in demand, hands down.  One buys a high demand, low supply week to trade to other high demand, low supply weeks, and that IS an even trade.
> 
> Some newbies think they are getting a trade up when they trade a blue weeks into a ''red'' week in an overbuilt area or in off season ''red'' like hurricane season in the Caribbean.  Again, the supply and demand factors of the market say that is an even trade.
> 
> ...




RCI is the wrong place to show as a shining example of a company that has created a “Level Playing Field” for the timeshare owners.  I know that most folks’ definition of a Tiger Trader would be based upon a framework of “Playing by the rules and an Equal for Equal”.

"I put up a super nice timeshare at a super nice holiday week and I expect it to fetch another owner’s super nice timeshare at a super nice holiday week."   That's what any owner, but us timeshare wonks, thinks is the definition of a "Tiger Trader".

In RCI and II you just need a timeshare that still has a pulse and it will snatch up something much higher in the timeshare food chain - their definition of "Tiger Trader".

RCI Points is no beacon of “Equal for equal” exchanges (it never was designed that way) – both RCI companies and II fail this test.

*So my RCI and II definition of a Tiger Trader is ANY unit *– it has a great chance of clawing it’s way to the top of the exchange pile in the back of the barn.

So I’d recommend that be the definition of a “Tiger Trader in the RCI/II universe” – ANYTHING that lets the two exchange companies sneak in an exchange under the cover of night - the more lopsided the better for everyone involved.


----------



## Phill12 (Jul 24, 2007)

*Giving up on Redweek exchange program!*



BocaBum99 said:


> Sure, that's the theory, but the following scenario is more likely.  Your Marriott Waiahai will become shark bait and snapped up immediately by DAE.
> 
> And, you will either get nothing after 3 years or 4 or 5 dog weeks you can't use in Ko Samui.




 I will not deposit a week with Redweek for any reason now!

 After seeing jayjay bad mouthing Tug and its members because I asked same question that had been talked about here and other sites and that is Dae and its deal with Redweek exchange!

 I as a member of Redweek asked and of coarse had response from jayjay bashing Tug and its stupid members of which I am one also.  

 He was stating its no ones business about how RW handles their company and Tug just keeps bashing Redweek.

 Of coarse I had to let him know it was honest question that if I made deposit I expected my unit to go to another RW member and not be shipped off to Dae. Point is if this is going to happen we could just cut RW out and use Dae.  

 There were other posters on that agreed with me. Jayjay likes to break down a post and jump on whats left. After few post Jayjay's daddy(Marty) stepped in and deleted my post and last couple of jayjay's too! Marty did leave the post from jayjay about Tug and its members though.   

 This same thing happened months ago when couple ladies had words with jayjay and told him where to stick it and good old Marty deleted the ladies and left Jayjay post on.

 For someone who keeps telling everyone he doesn't work for Redweek and Redweek states everytime someone gets fedup with jayjay that he does not work for Redweek they sure protect him and his post! 
 He also doesn't own a timeshare so as I posted he can't help this new exchange,he is just a cheer leader on the sideline telling everyone else what to do!

 His statement was Tug members are full of a bunch of "KNOW-IT-ALLS" who give their opinions and don't know anything about timesharing!

  I told him to just reverse the Tug name with Redweek and add his name because he is the total KNOW-IT-ALL for the Redweek site!

 I just put post on there telling Marty this and asked why he still didn't answer my simple question as a Redweek member and timeshare(2) owner.

 I was looking for trades of equal value before deposit and already had my points offer of 1934 but I have now lost all interest in Redweek and their plans!

 Maybe jayjay can give them a bunch of deposits"OH WAIT,FORGOT HE OWNS NONE"


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 24, 2007)

*If you don't know the value you can't have a market based trade*



Carolinian said:


> On the OBX, 90% of summer owners bought to use and do not use exchange companies, and only about 10% do.  There are more exchange oriented owners in shoulder and off seasons (about 30% in those seasons), and that is where the volume is for an exchange company.



The very seasons that fit the term "dog" if used to describe low demand times.  Trading one of those to any area except another highly seasonal resort with equivalent dog weeks is a trade up. Developers know that and thats why they don't want the poor value of those weeks exposed. The secret voodoo of the week for week system allows the illusion of a market when in fact none exists. Points at least gives the owners a value in and out thus creating a true market value based system. You feel it is worth it or it isn't and act accordingly. Fixed or not you know the value of the properties and can make an informed decision about a trade. Not place and hope as in weeks. Calling anything about weeks trades a "market force" strains all credibility. There is no market only back room hocus pocus.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 24, 2007)

SOFTBALLDAD3 said:


> I will not deposit a week with Redweek for any reason now!
> 
> After seeing jayjay bad mouthing Tug and its members because I asked same question that had been talked about here and other sites and that is Dae and its deal with Redweek exchange!
> 
> ...



RedWeek has their own chat room - like ALL chat rooms paid for by a company they are an extension of the sales department.  RW seems to fall into this camp - negative items can't be tolerated, they could cause the company the loss of a buck or two and that can't happen.

Tug's chatroom is a gem of a chat room - totally independent of paying sponsors.  I read a few threads over there and it's exactly what I'd expect from the sales department.  No more, no less.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 24, 2007)

Ah! But you seem to forget that any significant excess of supply over demand would fit in the dog category, and this certainly applies to much of the year in the overbuilt areas.  The reason a blue week from almost anywhere will trade into Orlando much of the year, for example, is because Orlando is massively overbuilt in timeshare and the resulting oversupply makes them equivalent weeks.  Calling that a trade up is laughable.  It is an even trade because the market says it is even.

Any system with values that are frozen for long periods rather than allowed to float with everchanging factors of supply and demand is simply not market based.  Points is more akin to rent control, wage and price freezes, or the command economy of the old Soviet bloc.  It strains all credibility to call something where the values and rigged and frozen, like points, to be ''market based''.  The market depends on free interplay of the forces of supply and demand.




timeos2 said:


> The very seasons that fit the term "dog" if used to describe low demand times.  Trading one of those to any area except another highly seasonal resort with equivalent dog weeks is a trade up. Developers know that and thats why they don't want the poor value of those weeks exposed. The secret voodoo of the week for week system allows the illusion of a market when in fact none exists. Points at least gives the owners a value in and out thus creating a true market value based system. You feel it is worth it or it isn't and act accordingly. Fixed or not you know the value of the properties and can make an informed decision about a trade. Not place and hope as in weeks. Calling anything about weeks trades a "market force" strains all credibility. There is no market only back room hocus pocus.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> It is an even trade because the market says it is even.
> 
> The market depends on free interplay of the forces of supply and demand.



So where is this "market"?  There are owners who say "I have a dog beach week so I should get a dog Orlando week at the magic Tree Resort"?  Nope. There is no interactive market in weeks - thats the underlying issue.  The owners of a dog week or a super week have no idea what the value of their time is (the dog week most likely overvalues theirs while the prime week REALLY overvalues theirs) and have no idea what they are being offered in return.  The few that take the time to learn can play the system for great results - the majority get the shaft. Its not a market or a barter its a take it or leave it situation.  Thats why - call them rigged, fixed, flawed or whatever you want - points give the owners a fighting chance. They can decide if a resort/location/date is "overvaluled" or "undervalued" they can act accordingly. Not so in weeks. Take it or leave it (and if you leave it you often loose your week).  Thats not a market.  And it can't "speak".  It is the very definition of "rigged".


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 24, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> ...  It is an even trade because the market says it is even...


I have to ask, do you really mean this????

Someone who owns a summer Paris week decides to attend a reunion in Iowa in November.  They trade for an Iowa timeshare.  "the market says that it even"  

Meanwhile, grubby Hairy trades his blue week, roach infested, motel conversion for the same size, same location.  (Wooopie... the best trade I have gotten in years)  "the market says that it even"

So, there you have it.  A summer Paris week is worth EXACTLY the same as a blue week, roach infested motel conversion.  "the market says it is even."

?????


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 24, 2007)

First, a deliberate trade down is not even, but if it is what somebody wants they are going to be happy.  I once traded a 2BR oceanfront summer week on the Outer Banks for a blue 1BR in Europe, that would certainly quailfy as a trade down, BUT it was at a limited availibility resort for which I had put in a search for a wide range of dates and the week that popped up worked extremely well with my schedule even if it was offseason.  I didn't whine and gnash my teeth about a trade down.  I enjoyed the exchange!

The roach infested ex-motel will probably trade for an overbuilt area during much of the year, but it is not going to trade for Paris in summer, or for a US beach in summer.





"Roger" said:


> I have to ask, do you really mean this????
> 
> Someone who owns a summer Paris week decides to attend a reunion in Iowa in November.  They trade for an Iowa timeshare.  "the market says that it even"
> 
> ...


----------



## taffy19 (Jul 24, 2007)

*Another question here?*

With so many exchange companies out there already, doesn't it get more difficult yet to make an exchange?  You deposited your week with exchange company A but then you happen to see what you want in exchange company B and not in A so how do you handle that?   

Getting more exchange companies yet doesn't seem to be the answer to me for successful trading unless one company blows all the other ones away because it is by far the best.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 24, 2007)

Many of the independents have trading partner arrangements among themselves.  For example, HTSE has such an arrangement with the United Kingdom Resort Exchange (UKRE).  Both of my Europe exchanges last summer through DAE were from their trading partner Club La Costa at resorts in France and England.




iconnections said:


> With so many exchange companies out there already, doesn't it get more difficult yet to make an exchange?  You deposited your week with exchange company A but then you happen to see what you want in exchange company B and not in A so how do you handle that?
> 
> Getting more exchange companies yet doesn't seem to be the answer to me for successful trading unless one company blows all the other ones away because it is by far the best.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 24, 2007)

So what you are saying is that Weeks is a fair system because you can trade down, but no one ever trades up?

Just so that you know, "supply and demand" requires that everyone is aware of current prices and availability.  That way, when prices go up, someone steps in to add supply.  If supplies are up, someone knows not to add more to the supply.  Nothing, nothing like this happens in the Weeks system.  No one is told that the price of a Paris week went up or down, no one can react to current supply shortages or overstocks.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 24, 2007)

iconnections said:


> With so many exchange companies out there already, doesn't it get more difficult yet to make an exchange?  You deposited your week with exchange company A but then you happen to see what you want in exchange company B and not in A so how do you handle that?
> 
> Getting more exchange companies yet doesn't seem to be the answer to me for successful trading unless one company blows all the other ones away because it is by far the best.



Emmy, you buy 19 weeks and exchange equally between both companies.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 24, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> So what you are saying is that Weeks is a fair system because you can trade down, but no one ever trades up?
> 
> Just so that you know, "supply and demand" requires that everyone is aware of current prices and availability.  That way, when prices go up, someone steps in to add supply.  If supplies are up, someone knows not to add more to the supply.  Nothing, nothing like this happens in the Weeks system.  No one is told that the price of a Paris week went up or down, no one can react to current supply shortages or overstocks.



Temporary conditions in supply and demand will certainly create times one can exchange for weeks that might not normally be availible.  At those times, it is still an even trade based on market conditions then existing.

I think you will find few markets in which ALL of the players have the extensive market knowledge you claim they do.

If one looks at the practical aspects of informing timesharers of all of the permutations of timeshare weeks and their values and allow them to constantly adjust for the market, it could only be done on the internet and would probably just confuse many timeshare owners.  I have no problem in the publication of such a system, as long as the methodology of establishing values and the data to support it are made public so that developers cannot fudge the numbers with RCI to their benefit.

The only other way to make values availible is to booger up the system by 1) freezing the numbers so that it can be published with paper and ink, which means that it cannot adjust for the market, and/or 2) to overaverage dissimilar weeks to reduce the amount of numbers to be published, which builds in a mechanism for unfair trades up while it also shortchanges the owners of the better weeks in each grouping.  Both of these are cures much worse than the disease.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 24, 2007)

*Supply and demand – it’s monkey business many places*

Last week a gallon of gasoline in St Louis (Regular) cost $2.98.  4 days ago it was $2.75, 2 days ago it was $2.85, and just an hour ago it was $2.64.  This is the supply and demand we keep hearing about?  The oil fields on the other side of the earth didn’t change during that time -  the drivers of cars aren’t changing their driving patterns during that time – what the heck is going on?

Well it’s simple – the state governments make the lion’s share of profits from a gallon of gas and instruct many/most retailers to base the price at the pump based upon the futures price of oil and gasoline.  That means the clowns running around the oil futures exchange pits yelling at each other determine what you pay at the pump right now.  Those prices change by the second and are speculator’s guesses what the price of gasoline/oil will be months from now – they don’t know any more than you do.

This reminds me of the ad on TV that features one guy and an office full of monkeys monkeying around.

Those same monkeys work for RCI and II!  They don’t have Einstein’s working for them, hell they can’t even produce a decent web site that works correctly.  What makes anyone here believe that RCI/II knows what they are doing and why should they even care about supply and demand when its all hidden from us anyway?

To assume that II/RCI care about supply and demand is lunacy.

In a Points based exchange system the “worth” of a reservation is easy to get – just find out what the resort rents the same exact units for.  Now that is an accurate measure of supply and demand and those numbers don’t change day to day – they are published rates that Orbitz and Travelocity and other’s use – they DO NOT CHANGE BY THE SECOND.

To suggest that supply and demand of timeshare reservations need to change by the second is something that only an office full of monkeys would propose.

RW has the right idea – if only they would fess up and tell us.


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 25, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> I have to ask, do you really mean this????
> 
> Someone who owns a summer Paris week decides to attend a reunion in Iowa in November.  They trade for an Iowa timeshare.  "the market says that it even"
> 
> ...



I agree with Roger.
With the RW system you could stay three weeks at the Roach Motel with the points from your Parisian Palace!


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 25, 2007)

''*State governments* . . . instruct[ing] many/most retailers to base the price at the pump upon the futures prices of oil and gasolene''???????????????

Gee, my state in not a ''peoples republic'' yet.  I don't know about yours!  What you describe is known as a ''command economy'' and is the underlying principle behind the former economies of the old Soviet bloc, and also of RCI Points and for that matter most any points systems.

Can you offer a shred of evidence that *any* state in the US ''*instructs*'' gasolene retailers how to set prices????????????

As to your theory about RW setting point values on rental rates, I have asked previously and you have admitted that you have no proof to back it up, only your own speculation.  Indeed, a lot of the point values of RW are evidence that their point values don't have the slightest thing to do with rental rates.

Nobody has said that values need to change by the second.  Weekly revision would certainly be adequate, and daily better.

As to the concept of an exchange company using rental rates for supply and demand, this doesn't make sense for the exchange market.  An exchange company makes its money off of exchange fees, so they want to maximize the number of exchanges they make.  The key is to set the exchange values where they will move as much inventory as possible.  They don't produce the deposit, as it comes in from a member, so they have no fixed costs to speak of like a hotel in producing the product.   On the low end, such as Cape Cod in January or in overbuilt areas much of the year, they will have more flexibility to go lower than someone renting their own facility would.  On the high end, the exchange demand may also push them to set values above where the rental market would be.   Supply and demand for timeshare and for rentals in a given area are often not going to be the same.  Members with their capital tied up in timeshare ownership are going to want to exchange to get value from that ownership rather than rent, so the fact that they could rent cheap in an area with tight timeshare supply is often not going to impact timeshare demand.

And by the way, from all I have ever read, in this high tech era, it is not an office full of people (or monkeys) which keeps track of supply and demand, it is computers.  Christel deHaan's shoeboxes are long gone.

And finding out what the resort rents the units for may work a few places, but the reality is that many timeshare resorts are simply not in the rental business at all. 




PerryM said:


> Last week a gallon of gasoline in St Louis (Regular) cost $2.98.  4 days ago it was $2.75, 2 days ago it was $2.85, and just an hour ago it was $2.64.  This is the supply and demand we keep hearing about?  The oil fields on the other side of the earth didn’t change during that time -  the drivers of cars aren’t changing their driving patterns during that time – what the heck is going on?
> 
> Well it’s simple – the state governments make the lion’s share of profits from a gallon of gas and instruct many/most retailers to base the price at the pump based upon the futures price of oil and gasoline.  That means the clowns running around the oil futures exchange pits yelling at each other determine what you pay at the pump right now.  Those prices change by the second and are speculator’s guesses what the price of gasoline/oil will be months from now – they don’t know any more than you do.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Jul 25, 2007)

*The timeshare fairy knows...*



Carolinian said:


> ''*State governments* . . . instruct[ing] many/most retailers to base the price at the pump upon the futures prices of oil and gasolene''???????????????
> 
> Gee, my state in not a ''peoples republic'' yet.  I don't know about yours!  What you describe is known as a ''command economy'' and is the underlying principle behind the former economies of the old Soviet bloc, and also of RCI Points and for that matter most any points systems.
> 
> ...




I read a news article(s) about some Shell owner offering discounts to senior citizens and was hauled into court – it violated that state’s pricing regulations on gasoline – he had to drop the discounts and charge the same exact price (within a penny) of the other nearby gas stations.  The article pointed out that many/most states now demand that the price at the gas pump be a percentage over the price of the future price of a gallon of gasoline 3 months from now.  

If you want links to the fiasco the bureaucrats, politicians, and lawyers have gotten us into with pricing of gasoline - do it yourself and prove me wrong.  Until then I’ll go with that news article which I’ve seen several times by different authors.

RW is stalling and is not being 100% transparent – they hymn and haw about how they get their determination of “worth” of a reservation.  There are no links to reference so common sense must be called upon.  RW has thousands of rental ads they have folks pay good money to list all the time – if the resort doesn’t rent then RW itself is a source of prevailing rental rates.

I guess the hot shot running RW has been taking notes from the RCI and RCI Points folks – secrecy is good for profits.  Every day has me losing faith in a great concept and realizing that he/they are in way over their head(s).

I get a kick out of RW's chat rooms where folks/shills are asking for patients and that good things will be coming from the timeshare fairy////////owner.

There have been many contests pitting our smartest stock analysts and computer programs against a monkey and the monkey (or throwing a dart at the WSJ) did just as good and many times was superior at forecasting the supply and demand for a stock (it’s current and future price)

I can play the same game – show me a link to where RCI has said they change the Trading Power on a weekly basis.  There are no links – this asking for links is just a red herring designed to divert attention to the fact that RCI and II have disclosed only rudimentary information on how they actually do their exchanges – everything else is a guess and I certainly don’t pretend to forecast II and RCI better than a monkey.

P.S.
Ok, I spent 2 minutes trying to find that article about the senior discount on gas - this is the only remnant I could find of that article - anyone wanting to spend more time to find that article is more than welcome to do so.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 25, 2007)

*Lets go for a swim in the murky water*



"Roger" said:


> Just so that you know, "supply and demand" requires that everyone is aware of current prices and availability.  That way, when prices go up, someone steps in to add supply.  If supplies are up, someone knows not to add more to the supply.  Nothing, nothing like this happens in the Weeks system.  No one is told that the price of a Paris week went up or down, no one can react to current supply shortages or overstocks.



This critical fact keeps being ignored. There is no open market at work so no one can react or even know if there is an overabundance of great weeks or a short supply that would make the roach motel unit a tiger.  What is being called a "market" is a cesspool of unknowns - you aren't even allowed to fish in it. The exchange companies take in and selectively hand out. That is not and cannot be a "market".  It is far more rigged than any points system could possibly be.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 25, 2007)

Does anybody really know how Walmart decides to set it prices, when it decides to have a sale, which merchandise to discount? What really counts is that we, as consummers, can see what the prices are and let that help us determine what to buy.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 25, 2007)

*Thank you very much...*



"Roger" said:


> Does anybody really know how Walmart decides to set it prices, when it decides to have a sale, which merchandise to discount? What really counts is that we, as consummers, can see what the prices are and let that help us determine what to buy.



The very definition of a Point system.

The very undefinition (sp?) Of a Week system (Weak?).


----------



## e.bram (Jul 25, 2007)

How can we say points are points, when the same number of points are issued for may thru October when only july and august are prime. Not only that but the developer has his hand on the keyboard assigning the prime weeks which he(she) can rent for bog bucks. Which units do you think the points owners will be assigned.
For this reason any owners assigned a prime week and weeks owners of prime weeks usually use or rent leaving the dogs for RW and other exchanges.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 25, 2007)

*Check the dog pound....*



e.bram said:


> How can we say points are points, when the same number of points are issued for may thru October when only july and august are prime. Not only that but the developer has his hand on the keyboard assigning the prime weeks which he(she) can rent for bog bucks. Which units do you think the points owners will be assigned.
> For this reason any owners assigned a prime week and weeks owners of prime weeks usually use or rent leaving the dogs for RW and other exchanges.



I would suggest that you answer your own question by spending 30 minutes on Marriott's rental site.

Marriott is a perfect example of a timeshare developer renting the same exact units they sell.  Their rates are published on that site.  No guessing what a unit (timeshare resort, week) is worth Marriott will tell you down to the penny what is rent's for.

FairField is the same - they will tell you what any unit is worth.  Same with Disney. Same with Hilton......

The worth of a timeshare unit is so easy to compute that RW seems embarrassed to admit what they use - must make it secret like they know more than you and I.

It is up to RW to define "dog" and I'd bet that any of us could come up with a fantastic definition if we spent 30 minutes.  So I disagree that RW will be accepting their definition of "dogs".  They should post guidelines as to what a flea infested dog is.

P.S.
If I were the brains over at RW I'd just tell folks that they are looking for units that rent for $700* - $???? And that any unit that rents for less than $700* will be sent to the dog pound.  (*They put in a price, maybe $1,200 is more like it)

P.P.S.
They also need to address how they price duplicate reservations and if they are going to discount reservations that start to get stale.  I get the impression that these are things not considered yet.

This stuff is so simple that maybe RW should visit a 5th grade classroom and seek help.  You know hold a focus group and take notes.  RW; if you're tight for money just offer them some pepperoni pizzas - they will spill their guts on you.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 25, 2007)

e.bram said:


> ...when the same number of points are issued for may thru October when only july and august are prime. ....


The fall same the same as mid-summer??  This simply is not true (at least for any point system that I am aware of).  Several of us have asked which point system you are referring to and you never responded.

I fully believe that you _think_ that this claim is true, but I also think that you were probably misled by a post from another poster.  A claim was put out that RCI Points assigned the same number of points for "a prime mid-August week" as October.  The truth here is that the number of points required to obtain a unit _after_ (about) August 18 is the same as October.  (Notice, that the number of points needed for a unit is NOT the same as July nor a good part of August as October.)  

By way of comparison, you might look at this OBX rental property.  When you open up this site, click on the "View Rates" button to see their calendar of rates.

Click on View Rates

You will see that rental rates on OBX begin to drop August *4*.  (In fairness, there is a variety amoung different OBX rental sites as to the exact date in August that rates start to drop - not all of them start this early.  Still, there is a uniformity as to having the rates start to drop sometime in mid-August when parents are beginning to prepare for having their kids go back to school. I chose this site simply because it was the very first that I looked at.)

So, _mid summer weeks _do not get the same number of points as fall weeks.  The smidgen of truth in this claim is that RCI drops point totals about when rental agencies do.  You could claim that RCI overaverages by not dropping the point totals in small enough incriments (how often to drop them is a business decision), but somehow I don't think the claim that "a late August week, after vacation interest goes down, had the same point value as mid-October rate!" would be a killer criticism (especially given the numberous times that we have been assured that OBX has a very high occupancy rate for most of the year including October).


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 25, 2007)

On a somewhat related issue, it is hard not to notice when one explores the OBX rental sites (or Colorado lodges or ...) that they have fixed schedules of prices.  This is not because they are Commies.  All these places (as well as RCI, II, Hilton - with their HGVC - Hyatt, Disney, etc.) have long standing records of year to year demand.  They see no need to adjust the rates every week (nor every day).  Providing customers with fixed schedules of prices is simply good business practice.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 25, 2007)

*Let the sunshine*



"Roger" said:


> On a somewhat related issue, it is hard not to notice when one explores the OBX rental sites (or Colorado lodges or ...) that they have fixed schedules of prices.  This is not because they are Commies.  All these places (as well as RCI, II, Hilton - with their HGVC - Hyatt, Disney, etc.) have long standing records of year to year demand.  They see no need to adjust the rates every week (nor every day).  Providing customers with fixed schedules of prices is simply good business practice.



HALLELUJAH! Someone has seen the light!  The arguments that values are too static or unknown to be published are ridiculous.  If there is communistic price fixing going on its in the secret bowels of the weeks exchange systems not the published values of the various points systems.   

As for "over averaging" that is being accomplished by the statements that a July week and an October week are given the same values in points. This is ignoring the change in valuation that occurs around mid-August in every system I've ever seen.  But it helps the arguments to forget that major mid-month change. It shows that weeks advocates like to use innuendo's and have never actually used a points system while most points users know the ins and outs of both.  Once you actually see it yourself the logic is very clear in points while the unknown nature of weeks is even more glaring.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 25, 2007)

djyamyam said:


> BB, there's a flaw in your logic as you need to be a WM owner in order to rent and deposit those WM points.  So add ~$43000 to the cost of that as your upfront capital.  Peelboy only spent ~$500 of upfront capital.  Amoritized over a number of years, and the cross-over line meets.  But until then, Peelboy's deal is better.



No you don't need to be an owner and my logic isn't flawed.  There is NO incremental costs to the owner or to the guest using this approach.  You just need to have an owner do it for you and make you a guest in the unit.  Free guest certificates at DAE.  There is no commercial intent in this type of transaction.  Just a friend helping another friend.

Alternatively if you are already a WorldMark owner like you and me, then you can use your account and there are no incremental costs other than what I have expressed.

This practice of booking a unit for a friend is no different than a guest using their credit card at II to pay for an AC and the guest certificate fee.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 25, 2007)

SOFTBALLDAD3 said:


> I will not deposit a week with Redweek for any reason now!
> 
> After seeing jayjay bad mouthing Tug and its members because I asked same question that had been talked about here and other sites and that is Dae and its deal with Redweek exchange!
> 
> ...



Softballdad,

I think you are may be directing your anger at the wrong party.  I do not believe that JayJay is affiliated with Redweek.  He or She may just be a third party who is simply bashing TUG.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 25, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> I am perplexed that you do not seem to understand the concept of market forces.



LOL.  Keep believing what you will.  It has served you well over the years.  

Your logic seems to suggest that nobody buys a Tiger Trader to trade up.  After all, according to you, "market forces" are at play and there are no trades ups, only even trades or the trade wouldn't be offered by the weeks based system.

Care to make a friendly wager on a poll to see how many tuggers agree with you?

My claim is that most people buy a Tiger Trader primarily as vehicle to Trade Up in a weeks based system.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 25, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> First, a deliberate trade down is not even, but if it is what somebody wants they are going to be happy.  I once traded a 2BR oceanfront summer week on the Outer Banks for a blue 1BR in Europe, that would certainly quailfy as a trade down, BUT it was at a limited availibility resort for which I had put in a search for a wide range of dates and the week that popped up worked extremely well with my schedule even if it was offseason.  I didn't whine and gnash my teeth about a trade down.  I enjoyed the exchange!
> 
> The roach infested ex-motel will probably trade for an overbuilt area during much of the year, but it is not going to trade for Paris in summer, or for a US beach in summer.




Let me see if I get this straight.  There are NO trade ups in a weeks based system because it is "market based" according to your logic.

However, there are "deliberate" trade downs and you have personally traded down.

So, nobody uses an exchange company to trade up.  They only use it to trade even or trade down.

If that's the case, then the RCI system as it exists today should be perfect for all timesharers.  It is very easy today to put a week into the system and trade down.

Since that is a market based system and RCI is delivering what the market wants, then everyone should be happy.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 25, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> On a somewhat related issue, it is hard not to notice when one explores the OBX rental sites (or Colorado lodges or ...) that they have fixed schedules of prices.  This is not because they are Commies.  All these places (as well as RCI, II, Hilton - with their HGVC - Hyatt, Disney, etc.) have long standing records of year to year demand.  They see no need to adjust the rates every week (nor every day).  Providing customers with fixed schedules of prices is simply good business practice.



Well, we all know that OBX resorts do not act in a market based way because their rental rates are rigged and frozen.  Rental rates should vary on a minute by minute basis based on temporary increases in supply and demand.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 25, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> No you don't need to be an owner and my logic isn't flawed.  There is NO incremental costs to the owner or to the guest using this approach.  You just need to have an owner do it for you and make you a guest in the unit.  Free guest certificates at DAE.  There is no commercial intent in this type of transaction.  Just a friend helping another friend.
> 
> Alternatively if you are already a WorldMark owner like you and me, then you can use your account and there are no incremental costs other than what I have expressed.
> 
> This practice of booking a unit for a friend is no different than a guest using their credit card at II to pay for an AC and the guest certificate fee.



I had some friends pay for their Getaways and GC's with their own credit cards, but I had no idea you could do this with an AC.  Then why does II object when you want to recover your AC fees from a friend?  What is the difference?  

You have made a good case for mini-point systems.  Less rules and more flexibility in what you can do with them.


----------



## Phill12 (Jul 25, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> Softballdad,
> 
> I think you are may be directing your anger at the wrong party.  I do not believe that JayJay is affiliated with Redweek.  He or She may just be a third party who is simply bashing TUG.



You are right and I have trouble believing this faceless person could belong to any company! My problem is I as a Redweek Member who has paid for useless rent ads and member fee's can not get simple question answered by Redweek!

 All you get is Jayjays mouth running and insulting Tug and its members. Then when you respond to him Marty rushes in to delete your post!

 I have not seen post by the two ladies they pulled this on last year after they wripped him. Marty deleted them but kept Jayjay's post that started all the crap!


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 25, 2007)

SOFTBALLDAD3 said:


> You are right and I have trouble believing this faceless person could belong to any company! My problem is I as a Redweek Member who has paid for useless rent ads and member fee's can not get simple question answered by Redweek!
> 
> All you get is Jayjays mouth running and insulting Tug and its members. Then when you respond to him Marty rushes in to delete your post!
> 
> I have not seen post by the two ladies they pulled this on last year after they wripped him. Marty deleted them but kept Jayjay's post that started all the crap!



Well, if that's the case, then you are fully justified in your position.  I wonder why they let the bad messages stay, but delete the rebuttals?  They must have been pro RW or something like that.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 25, 2007)

Yep!  JayJay has nothing but great stuff to say about Redweek because she gets her jollies by posting about timeshare.  She no longer owns any timeshares and has stated that several times on Redweek.  Marty on Redweek told me in a personal message that as long as JayJay posts with raving reviews of Redweek, she will remain.  Redweek sees TUG as a competitor.  

I just rented another timeshare week through My Resort Network and have had little success with Redweek.  Disappointing.


----------



## PeelBoy (Jul 25, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> No you don't need to be an owner and my logic isn't flawed.  There is NO incremental costs to the owner or to the guest using this approach.  You just need to have an owner do it for you and make you a guest in the unit.  Free guest certificates at DAE.  There is no commercial intent in this type of transaction.  Just a friend helping another friend.
> 
> Alternatively if you are already a WorldMark owner like you and me, then you can use your account and there are no incremental costs other than what I have expressed.
> 
> This practice of booking a unit for a friend is no different than a guest using their credit card at II to pay for an AC and the guest certificate fee.





Your logic is flawed.  I would need a friend who is a Worldmark member to do it for me.  Nowadays, it is easier to find $102.50 than a friend.

Okay.  If I choose to manipulate my friendship, I guess my friend will have to pay to become a Worldmark member.  

For a difference of $200, I am happy with my decision.  Scotland, here I come.


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 25, 2007)

I have a question.
How do you all know that  jayjay owns NO timeshares?



Also, I have had good luck on Redweek renting my weeks at Christie Lodge. I have never tried myresortnetwork, but have used it to help my price determination.

Look at these Redweek pages for Newport Coast and Ocean Pointe.
There are dozens & dozens of recently completed rentals here.

http://www.redweek.com/resort/P1550#rentals

http://www.redweek.com/resort/P1667#rentals


Terry


----------



## taffy19 (Jul 25, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> Well, we all know that OBX resorts do not act in a market based way because their rental rates are rigged and frozen. Rental rates should vary on a minute by minute basis based on temporary increases in supply and demand.


Boca, do you mean the rentals by owners at these resorts? Rental rates at hotels do not work that way because the rack rate is almost always the upper limit they will charge. There may be a special event going on that the rates get raised but that doesn't happen often but they will offer "specials" often if the season is slow because they want to fill up the hotel and nothing more. 

Hotel or condo rental rates are set by season and are mostly posted for the whole year. Look on any web site for hotels or condo rentals too. Why would the public rent at a timeshare condo for a higher price than they can get for an equivalent resort or condo on the Internet? 

For a minute, I thought that RedWeek was basing their points on rental rates but there has to be an additional secret formula for fluctuations in points to match the timeshare supply and demand index too as that is constantly changing. This is what we will never know and every exchange company may figure this differently.

I wouldn't like to own at a small independent resort today if I were dependent on making exchanges with more exchange companies joining the market yet as it will only become harder. JMHO. I would only buy re-sale today where there are many resorts in their system so you are not that dependent on an external exchange company at all. Times are changing and I don't see many independent resorts being built anymore either as it is too hard to compete with so many mini-systems out there.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 25, 2007)

PeelBoy said:


> Your logic is flawed.  I would need a friend who is a Worldmark member to do it for me.  Nowadays, it is easier to find $102.50 than a friend.
> 
> Okay.  If I choose to manipulate my friendship, I guess my friend will have to pay to become a Worldmark member.
> 
> For a difference of $200, I am happy with my decision.  Scotland, here I come.



My logic and math are not flawed.  I presented real alternatives than can be used to achieve the same result for lower cost. You just choose not to pursue it.  That's fine.  It doesn't make them not real.  It's your choice.  Not everyone has a problem finding friends in timesharing.

If you don't like Worldmark, you can use a cheap South African week or many other weeks for less than $500 out of pocket with $100-200 maintenance fee.  Same result.  No need for friends.

I already own WorldMark, so the incremental costs are real and no additional capital is required.  This would be true for ANY system where an owner can rent points and book a cheap blue studio week for deposit into DAE.

My main point is that you don't need RW to get the same or better deal than you got with a lot less risk.  You got what you wanted.   So, you are a winner.  That doesn't mean others will be as lucky.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 25, 2007)

PeelBoy said:


> Your logic is flawed.  I would need a friend who is a Worldmark member to do it for me.  Nowadays, it is easier to find $102.50 than a friend.
> 
> Okay.  If I choose to manipulate my friendship, I guess my friend will have to pay to become a Worldmark member.
> 
> For a difference of $200, I am happy with my decision.  Scotland, here I come.



Here's another option that is real.  I just bought an 8000 every other year Bluegreen package for $500 which included closing costs and 8000 points it has in it.  With a little effort, this is a deal that anyone on this board could get if they wanted.  Maintenance fees are $220 per year.  If it were my first package, I'd also have to pay $122.48 for annual dues.

What I could do is use those 8000 points to book 4 Big Cedar winter studio units worth 2000 points (any weeks 1-10) and deposit them with DAE.

First 4 exchanges are included in the purchase price.
    - total purchase price:  $500
    - Capital cost per exchange = $125
    - Exchange fee and insurance = $119 + $20
Total cost per exchange:  $264 = capital cost plus exchange fee and insurance

After the first 4 exchanges, I get 4 exchanges every 2 years (8000 points every other year).

Cost for 2 years of points
    - 2 maintenance fee payments:  $220 * 2
    - 2 annual dues: $122.48 * 2
total cost:  $684.96

Cost per incremental exchange = $684.96/4 = $171.24

For the first 8 exchanges, the total cost per exchange including capital and exchange fees are $217.62.

If the person already owns Bluegreen points, the economics are more favorable since the annual dues do not have to be paid again and the maintenance fee per point is cheaper.

It is tough to beat those economics.  If I wanted to exchange for DAE inventory whether it exists in Redweek or DAE, I would use a cheap Bluegreen package and exchange it through DAE, not Redweek.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 25, 2007)

No, the RCI Weeks system as it exists today is seriously distorted by two Cendant introduced policies:
1) The rental of prime exchange deposits to outsiders (which Bootleg and others with access to RCI computers have confirmed)
2) The downright fraudulent generic points grids for Points members to raid Weeks inventory at way too low values for prime weeks and resorts.
Both of these suck good inventory out of the exchange system, and it is highly questionable what, if anything, RCI puts back.

Now the RCI system under Christel deHaan was a good, member-friendly system.  It had no points and no rentals, and thus no conflicts of interest.

If there is an oversupply of anything, even gold and diamonds, in a market based system, the value will come down.  That is also true of timeshare weeks.  Catching the market right to get something that is not often availible at a particular value level is NOT a trade up.  It is just catching the market right.  Timeshare traders DO try to catch the market right and get a good deal, just like they do in buying stocks and lots of other things.  Timesharers certainly like to find situations where all the stars are in alignment so that somethat that is normally a difficult trade has more supply or less demand than usual and the trade value drops.  Catching bulkbankings is a good example of this, although resorts are doublecrossing their members who exchange when they bulkbank by hurting the resort's trading power.  I remember Bootleg's comments about how much Manhattan Club's trading power for its members dropped when the resort started bulkbanking.

There are lots of trades that may mistakenly be called trades up, like a trade into an overbuilt area in what is called ''red'' time (in reality at best light pink with shades of blue) but where exchange companies have a huge glut of inventory they are desperately trying to offload on somebody.




BocaBum99 said:


> Let me see if I get this straight.  There are NO trade ups in a weeks based system because it is "market based" according to your logic.
> 
> However, there are "deliberate" trade downs and you have personally traded down.
> 
> ...


----------



## PeelBoy (Jul 25, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> Here's another option that is real.  I just bought an 8000 every other year Bluegreen package for $500 which included closing costs and 8000 points it has in it.  With a little effort, this is a deal that anyone on this board could get if they wanted.  Maintenance fees are $220 per year.  If it were my first package, I'd also have to pay $122.48 for annual dues.
> 
> What I could do is use those 8000 points to book 4 Big Cedar winter studio units worth 2000 points (any weeks 1-10) and deposit them with DAE.
> 
> ...




Thanks a million.  I have copied and saved your method, so will start searching for an affordable bluegreen package.

I am glad to belong to TUG.  Developers probably see us as headache.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 25, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> No, the RCI Weeks system as it exists today is seriously distorted by two Cendant introduced policies:
> 1) The rental of prime exchange deposits to outsiders (which Bootleg and others with access to RCI computers have confirmed)
> 2) The downright fraudulent generic points grids for Points members to raid Weeks inventory at way too low values for prime weeks and resorts.
> Both of these suck good inventory out of the exchange system, and it is highly questionable what, if anything, RCI puts back.
> ...



Many people buy Tiger Traders to TRADE UP.  Do you dispute this assertion?


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 25, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> Well, we all know that OBX resorts do not act in a market based way because their rental rates are rigged and frozen.  Rental rates should vary on a minute by minute basis based on temporary increases in supply and demand.



The rental market is largely a different animal, although related, than the timeshare exchange market.

Rental rates DO vary.  Call Outer Banks Resort Rentals, the firm that handles most timeshare rentals on the OBX to offer them a week to rent at the last minute and see if they suggest listing it at the usual prices or at a reduced price.

Rental firms do not like to lower prices on weeks placed for rental a long time out even if weeks don't rent because they don't want to risk depressing the market.  They may lose a commission or two, but that is more than balanced by taking their usual percentage of other rentals at hisher rates.  An exchange company, on the other hand, has to give out an exchange for each deposit so they are more motivated to reduce the value to fit the market and move the week.

Comparing the rental market and exchange market is like comparing apples and oranges.  They are both fruit, but the similarities beyond that soon end.


----------



## Elan (Jul 25, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> If there is an oversupply of anything, even gold and diamonds, in a market based system, the value will come down.  That is also true of timeshare weeks.  Catching the market right to get something that is not often availible at a particular value level is NOT a trade up.  It is just catching the market right.  Timeshare traders DO try to catch the market right and get a good deal, just like they do in buying stocks and lots of other things.  Timesharers certainly like to find situations where all the stars are in alignment so that somethat that is normally a difficult trade has more supply or less demand than usual and the trade value drops.  Catching bulkbankings is a good example of this, although resorts are doublecrossing their members who exchange when they bulkbank by hurting the resort's trading power.  I remember Bootleg's comments about how much Manhattan Club's trading power for its members dropped when the resort started bulkbanking.



  This would all be true if there was liquidity/volume in the timeshare exchange "market" like there is in the stock market.  But there isn't.  

  My view of this is that trading up is provisioned for in weeks, because it is offset by those that willingly trade down just to go somewhere different, or go at a more convenient time.  If *everyone* was out to get a higher demand property with their deposit, trading up would go by the wayside.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 25, 2007)

Most of the commentary you posted seems to be arguing that the end of the senior citizen discount was based on discrimination laws not the state government dictated how much to charge for gasolene.

At least for these old Confederate states, government doen't tell gas stations what to charge, and I suspect that is true in most if not all of the country.  I well remember growing up in Charlotte, North Carolina and driving to Myrtle Beach in the summer and always trying to be near empty going through Pageland, South Carolina where there was almost a perpetual gas war.  Real leaded regular (those were the days!) was 32.9 cents a gallon most of the time in Charlotte and in most of South Carolina as well, but in Pageland one could buy it for around 20 cents a gallon.  Although not as constant or dramatic, for the last couple of years there has been and on-again, off-again gas war in Columbia, North Carolina on the way to the OBX. Sometimes they are selling gas 20 cents a gallon less than either on the OBX or in my home town or anywhere else along the way.  Nobody is dictating to them what to sell gas for.




PerryM said:


> I read a news article(s) about some Shell owner offering discounts to senior citizens and was hauled into court – it violated that state’s pricing regulations on gasoline – he had to drop the discounts and charge the same exact price (within a penny) of the other nearby gas stations.  The article pointed out that many/most states now demand that the price at the gas pump be a percentage over the price of the future price of a gallon of gasoline 3 months from now.
> 
> If you want links to the fiasco the bureaucrats, politicians, and lawyers have gotten us into with pricing of gasoline - do it yourself and prove me wrong.  Until then I’ll go with that news article which I’ve seen several times by different authors.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 25, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> This critical fact keeps being ignored. There is no open market at work so no one can react or even know if there is an overabundance of great weeks or a short supply that would make the roach motel unit a tiger.  What is being called a "market" is a cesspool of unknowns - you aren't even allowed to fish in it. The exchange companies take in and selectively hand out. That is not and cannot be a "market".  It is far more rigged than any points system could possibly be.



There is no incentive to rig the exchnage system UNLESS the exchange company itself is taking inventory out for other purposes.  That conflict of interest did not exist in the Cristel deHaan days at RCI.  Now Cendant has injected conflict of interest with its rental to outsiders program and its use of Weeks to prop up Points.  When they have their hand in the till, they are likely to also have their thumb on the scales.

Publishing the exchange values without publishing the formula and data upon which they are set, as in RCI Points, is the worst of all worlds.  It provides both the incentive (published numbers) and opportunity (unpublished formula and supporting data) for cooking the books in favor of whoever they want whether it be groups like resorts still in developer sales or even RCI itself.  It opens the door for a cesspool of corruption like the numbers racket called RCI Points.

I have no problem with not publishing trade values as long as there is no incentive for the entity running to cheat, however when there is, as in today's RCI, it is better to reveal trade values and formulas.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 25, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> ....
> 
> Comparing the rental market and exchange market is like comparing apples and oranges.  They are both fruit, but the similarities beyond that soon end.


I don't think this will wash.  Lets go back to the original concerns ...


Rental prices for OBX drop off at varying times in mid-August.  RCI Point values drop around August 18.  I questioned why an August 18 week was described as a "prime August week" suggesting that it should be given the same point value as a July deposit when rental prices are going down.
Rental agencies on OBX use fixed grids to publish prices.  I wondered why it was criminal (actually Communisitc) for not only RCI Points but also Disney, Hyatt, Hilton, etc. to publish seasonal rates based upon historic usage.

If I am reading this right, your response is ..

It is misleading to compare rental demand and timeshare demand on OBX during late August.  That would be like comparing apples with oranges.
It is perfectly understandable that renters would be interested in having a fixed schedule of rates and those rates can be established by historical demand.  Timesharing is completely different.  Historic demand is a totally inappropriate thing to refer to. That would be like comparing apples to oranges.
I'm sorry.  Waving your hands and saying well this is different doesn't cut it with me.  I want to know why family vacationing patterns are so different for renters and timesharers and I want to know why having published rates based upon historic usage can only work with rentals.  To me, this looks like nothing more than hand waving because your position is crumbling.  Personally, I trust Disney, Hyatt, Hilton, etc. to know what they are doing when they decided it was good business practice to publish rate schedules for their point systems and I see no reason why RCI should be doing the same. Sorry.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 25, 2007)

*Points lets the owners correct - weeks is under the thumb of the company*



Carolinian said:


> There is no incentive to rig the exchnage system UNLESS the exchange company itself is taking inventory out for other purposes.  That conflict of interest did not exist in the Cristel deHaan days at RCI.  Now Cendant has injected conflict of interest with its rental to outsiders program and its use of Weeks to prop up Points.  When they have their hand in the till, they are likely to also have their thumb on the scales.



We are in agreement on that.  Whats important is to realize they DO have a reason to tip things so a hidden valuation system with only one administrator isn't viable. Under these circumstances owners choosing to place a week with RCI Weeks are genuinely gambling with that time.  It's not likely to be an easy or fair trade that is offered in return. 



Carolinian said:


> Publishing the exchange values without publishing the formula and data upon which they are set, as in RCI Points, is the worst of all worlds.  It provides both the incentive (published numbers) and opportunity (unpublished formula and supporting data) for cooking the books in favor of whoever they want whether it be groups like resorts still in developer sales or even RCI itself.  It opens the door for a cesspool of corruption like the numbers racket called RCI Points.



We disagree here. Half a loaf is better than none. How they create the values isn't as important as seeing what they are. Once they are posted a true market - the owners using their points - can vote by accepting the values or going elsewhere. They can dole out their points as they prefer to get one great week or many lesser weeks. They won't lose value either way.  If some are as bad as you say RCI ends up with a ton of overvalued time they can't get rid of at those inflated values,  just like the high percentage of dog times that plague the weeks system. They don't want that in points so it should be a self-correcting issue. With weeks they simply hide the low values and string the unknowing along until they give up or take an unwanted exchange (thus canceling their whole deposit) just to avoid losing time. 



Carolinian said:


> I have no problem with not publishing trade values as long as there is no incentive for the entity running to cheat, however when there is, as in today's RCI, it is better to reveal trade values and formulas.



Again - we agree. The trade values need to be exposed for points or weeks.  Not to do so fosters the distrust we see in RCI/II now.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 25, 2007)

One of the major problems of RCI Points, caused by the limitations of a paper and ink publication system, is that of overaveraging, which is bad enough for Points resorts and much worse in the generic grid.

The reality is that value climbs slowly week by week in the spring and declines gradually week by week in the fall.  The abrupt change from one week to the next at the grid change point in Points is completely unrealistic.  There is little difference in either the sale price or rental price between week 32 and week 33, but a big difference in RCI point values.  On the other hand, there is a huge difference between the sale price or rental price of a week 33 and and a week 43, but they have the exact same point value in RCI Points.  That is just nuts!

RCI Weeks, not being constrained by a paper and ink value publication system, has the flexibilitiy to gradually adjust those values seasonally up and down, while the more rigid RCI Points valuation system does not.  That is one of the huge advantages of Weeks over Points - greater flexibility in the valuation system.

Historic demand is quite appropriate for setting exchange values, but it needs to be run through a system flexible enough to deal with the gradual and incremental increases and declines in the spring and fall.  RCI Points and the overaveraged grids simply cannot and do not do this.

As to the difference in the rental and exchange markets, this is mostly a different set of supply and a different set of customers.  Non-timeshare owning renters are not able to compete for timeshare exchange because they don't own a timeshare.  On the other hand timeshare owners have their money tied up in a timeshare week they want to use for exchange rather than letting that go unused in order to spend their vacation week in a rental.
While there is some overlap, these are largely different markets.  The demand factors may not be that different in these markets, but the supply factors often are.

Indeed one should see that from an even closer comparision in the supply and demand factors between two exchange systems, RCI and II.  Take Foxrun, which is dual affiliated for example.  RCI has pretty good inventory in the area and it was only a so-so RCI trader, but II had little.  While RCI had adequate supply to cover demand, II did not.  Some astute Tuggers discovered this and exploited it by buying Foxrun to trade in II where it traded extremely well.  Was this a ''trade up''?  No, the II market simply said it had higher value than the RCI market. While demand was likely quite similar in both markets, the supply side was very different.  Eventually, enough people did this that II got enough supply that the high trading power of Foxrun dropped.

Similarly we have had Tuggers post that overbuilt Williamsburg trades much better in II than in RCI.  Again, that is likely due to a difference in the supply factor between the RCI market and the II market.





"Roger" said:


> I don't think this will wash.  Lets go back to the original concerns ...
> 
> 
> Rental prices for OBX drop off at varying times in mid-August.  RCI Point values drop around August 18.  I questioned why an August 18 week was described as a "prime August week" suggesting that it should be given the same point value as a July deposit when rental prices are going down.
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 25, 2007)

The Cendant changes in RCI are the problem.  Remove them and go back to the deHaan model and everything will be fine again.  The deHaan model had no conflict of interest and therefore no need to publish values.  Due to the Cendant changes, owners are at risk in RCI in either system.

Your ''half a loaf'' situation is the worst possible combination. It can be described as ''half baked''.  Publishing the values creates an incentive to cook the books.  A non-published system creates no incentive for developers to politick RCI for unjustified values.  The only way to correct that is to take away the abilty to cook the books.  Publishing the formula does not.  Not publishing the formula leaves the ability to cheat.  One only has to look at the cesspool of corrupt numbers in the RCI Points racket where they have pandered to developers in sales to see the result of having a system that creates both the incentive and the opportunity to cheat.

The only systems that will avoid this problem are to publish both values and formula or to publish neither. 

RCI Points numbers problem is not a self-correcting issue, but on the contrary a self-serving issue.  These screwy numbers systems in RCI Points are designed to generate ''excess inventory'' to feed their rental to the public system.

The trade values only need to be exposed in Weeks if the formula is also exposed.  Otherwise, RCI will pander to developers in Weeks as well and screw up the system even more.




timeos2 said:


> We are in agreement on that.  Whats important is to realize they DO have a reason to tip things so a hidden valuation system with only one administrator isn't viable. Under these circumstances owners choosing to place a week with RCI Weeks are genuinely gambling with that time.  It's not likely to be an easy or fair trade that is offered in return.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Jul 26, 2007)

*Fruit salad exchanges...*



Carolinian said:


> One of the major problems of RCI Points, caused by the limitations of a paper and ink publication system, is that of overaveraging, which is bad enough for Points resorts and much worse in the generic grid.
> 
> The reality is that value climbs slowly week by week in the spring and declines gradually week by week in the fall.  The abrupt change from one week to the next at the grid change point in Points is completely unrealistic.  There is little difference in either the sale price or rental price between week 32 and week 33, but a big difference in RCI point values.  On the other hand, there is a huge difference between the sale price or rental price of a week 33 and and a week 43, but they have the exact same point value in RCI Points.  That is just nuts!
> 
> ...




This is lunacy; and that’s putting it politely.

Let me get this right:
1)	RCI Weeks, which had NEVER disclosed how it uses supply and demand, is good
2)	RCI Points, which publishes supply and demand in the open, is bad
3)	RCI should be sued, fined, or thrown in jail for RCI Points

There is NO verifiable proof, only your guesses, that RCI Weeks diligently takes supply and demand into account on a frequent basis.  I don’t for a second believe RCI worries about supply and demand unless it suits their purpose to move the exchange process forward to lock in those exchange fees.

You seem to say that a paper and ink system of publishing RCI Points is corrupt since it can’t react to frequent changes.  If that is true then are you saying that RCI Points is correct but it’s lagging by a week or month?  It’s my understanding that they don’t change the point charts very often.  This just doesn’t make any sense.

RCI is a fundamentally flawed exchange system that needs to hide all the gory details of daily operations.  By this I mean that RCI must somehow allow an apple, orange, plum, pear, watermelon, cherries, blueberries to all be interchangeable – this is the flawed part of their system.

To then say that supply and demand added on top of the bushel basket of fruit will somehow make things work better is not supported by any logic I can conjure up.  Basically I’m saying that there is NO reason to include supply and demand into a mishmash of reservations that are totally different and not compatible in nature – what’s the purpose?

I believe that RCI uses the original date of the ongoing search, a number (Trading power) for each size of unit and color season and throws in a random variable to hide the simple grading system and will decrease that number as the reservation ages.  I see no reason to add supply and demand to this.  I can see the computer randomly picking a reservation and decrease it's trading power and allow exchanges.  This is a totally corrupt system I just described and I challenge anyone to prove it's not the system RCI/II use.

To then say we must take into account supply and demand within this corrupt system is folly.

If you demand supply and demand be taken into account you are suggesting that RCI is a 100% honest exchange system - then you want to sue them because they are corrupt?

I don't get it; I never have and I doubt I ever will.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

Perry, you are so eaten up with this points lunacy that you cannot see clearly, and as usual you distort comments of those you don't agree with to set up a  straw man and knock it down.

First, RCI Weeks, pre-Cendant was a good system.  The change occured when Cendant corrupted that system with rentals to the general public and diverting Weeks inventory to prop up Points.  This is why the suit against RCI was necessary; to get their hands out of the exchange deposit pot and restore the system to its previous integrity.

RCI's description of how its exchange system works says they use historical usage data, which includes supply and demand in determining trading power. From observing the workings of the exchange system, I see no reason to dispute that.  Also, all of Bootleg's info was consistent with that.  Your post essentially claims that all red trades the same at the same resort and similarly all white or all blue.  Anyone who has used the exchange system can tell you that your speculation is simply not true.


----------



## e.bram (Jul 26, 2007)

If the point system can't guarantee a specific unit at a specific time, why not just rent. If you can't find what you want, it doesn't cost. With points you have to take something(maybe not what you really want) or loose the points(money). With weeks I know 100% I am getting the unit I want when I want it, if a conflict arises   i can exchange  and salvage something.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 26, 2007)

This is such an easy question to answer...

I belonged to Weeks for about three years and used SFX for two.  My results were poor to mediocre.  Since joining Points, I have several marvelous trips to England (much better than the one I got via SFX).  One year my wife and I took an elderly relative on what for her was the trip of her lifetime.  We were able to get a three bedroom at one of England's top resorts. Given that we only own a one bedroom, I seriously doubt that we could have done it in Weeks.  When my wife and I only needed a one bedroom we could chose that and save left over points for other trips (like the one described above).

This year we went to two decidedly mediocre resorts (compared to ours), but in good locations for us.  Rather than hemming and hawing about how we were losing a good part of the value of our timeshare by trading down (for one trip), we took both.  

Currently, I am deciding about what to do next year.  One possibility is a trip during spring break; another is a trip early June.  With Weeks I would have felt that I needed to grab what I have seen available for Spring rather than chance what would become available later for June.  Rather than being forced into that sort of choice, I am waiting.  My spring trips are still available and shortly I will be able to see what I can get in June.

In short, Points has been a wonderful experience for us because of its flexibility.  (Carolinian will be driven nuts by the fact that I used that word, but it is true... Points has given me sooooo much more flexibility.)

I am glad you are happy going where you own.  Hopefully, you can be glad that Points gives some of us with different interests and different needs the same sort of happiness.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 26, 2007)

*Take a fixed, a float or a "super float". Points let you choose*



e.bram said:


> If the point system can't guarantee a specific unit at a specific time, why not just rent. If you can't find what you want, it doesn't cost. With points you have to take something(maybe not what you really want) or loose the points(money). With weeks I know 100% I am getting the unit I want when I want it, if a conflict arises   i can exchange  and salvage something.



Points can and does provide the guarantee of a specific week/resort and maybe unit if you want to be tied down that much. Usually that is accomplished by a home resort priority.  Then, just like your weeks, if you don't wish to use that resort/week/unit you can exchange just like weeks. But unlike weeks you don't necessarily get one exchange for one week but a pool of points to be used as you see fit rather than being offered a one for one trade. The word flexibility fits. You can pick an exchange that uses up most of your points but even if you only have a few left in "change" you don't lose them. Use them for a small unit or a short week or roll them over to be used with your next years points - the system ensures you get full value out rather than taking your full week in one, often times unequal, trade.  And of course you know going in how much you have to spend in points and what the exchange you want will cost. If you desire a bigger unit or higher value time you can add to your points to get it rather than being told your trade is inadequate.  Flexibility.  Control.  There is a reason you don't see many posts from unhappy points owners while TUG was built at least in part on weeks owners dissatisfaction with that system even in the "good old days".


----------



## PerryM (Jul 26, 2007)

*Geek Squad or Maytag Repair Man can fix RCI/II*



Carolinian said:


> <snip>
> *First, RCI Weeks, pre-Cendant was a good system.  The change occured when Cendant corrupted that system with rentals to the general public and diverting Weeks inventory to prop up Points. * This is why the suit against RCI was necessary; to get their hands out of the exchange deposit pot and restore the system to its previous integrity.



I wholeheartedly agree that when RCI integrated RCI's/Cendant's travel division they were forced into renting, at market prices, timeshares that would normally be used for exchanges.  The question that 12 folks will have to decide is 1) An innocent and stupid mistake 2) An evil plot to take over the world.  I think they will side with the bumpkin idea; they will empathize with RCI.




Carolinian said:


> <snip>
> *RCI's description of how its exchange system works says they use historical usage data, which includes supply and demand in determining trading power. *From observing the workings of the exchange system, I see no reason to dispute that.  Also, all of Bootleg's info was consistent with that.  Your post essentially claims that all red trades the same at the same resort and similarly all white or all blue.  Anyone who has used the exchange system can tell you that your speculation is simply not true.



This is where I don't understand your logic.

You just said that RCI is either 1) Stupid or 2) Crooked and now you say that they are Einsteins who are like weather forecasters and predicting patterns of supply and demand.

I just make the assumption in all the above that RCI has a problem of inbreeding - they have a low IQ and are bumbling thru their insane business plan.  If I had to factor in supply and demand it would need NO historic data:

*Definitions:*
No supply: 0 reservations for a specific week and unit size
Supply: 1 reservation for a specific week and unit size
Glut: 2 or more reservations for a specific week and unit size

No demand: 0 ongoing searches for a specific week and unit size
Demand: 1 ongoing search for a specific week and unit size
Mobbed: 2 or more ongoing searches for a specific week and unit size

There is NO need for ANY historical data - it's just a buzz word that some marketing guys pulled out of their butts.


Just as I don't believe that II/RCI have the best interests of their members at heart I don't believe that they take supply and demand into account either; at least the definition that most folks use from common sense.

P.S.
I believe that the above definitions of supply and demand (the insane ones) are actually used by RCI and II.  I would if I were running their IT department - saves the need to keep historic data and they are all I'd need to implement the existing systems as we see them today.  That way I don't need to pay for a data base administrator - I can call in the Geek Squad to make programming changes - or the Maytag Repair Man.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 26, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Perry, you are so eaten up with this points lunacy that you cannot see clearly, and as usual you distort comments of those you don't agree with to set up a  straw man and knock it down.
> 
> First, RCI Weeks, pre-Cendant was a good system.  The change occured when Cendant corrupted that system with rentals to the general public and diverting Weeks inventory to prop up Points.  This is why the suit against RCI was necessary; to get their hands out of the exchange deposit pot and restore the system to its previous integrity.
> 
> RCI's description of how its exchange system works says they use historical usage data, which includes supply and demand in determining trading power. From observing the workings of the exchange system, I see no reason to dispute that.  Also, all of Bootleg's info was consistent with that.  Your post essentially claims that all red trades the same at the same resort and similarly all white or all blue.  Anyone who has used the exchange system can tell you that your speculation is simply not true.



I'd have to support the notion that RCI was better and more owner friendly in the pre-Cendant days.  That's because Cendant seems to do everything it can to suck out value of every thing it owns.  It's apparantly the nature of the beast.

I don't, however, attribute the degradation of the RCI system inherently to RCI Points.  Cendant would have found ways to suck out value of the system even if they hadn't introduced RCI Points.  All they had to do was eliminate the deposit of developer weeks into the system by renting them for profit and the RCI system would collapse and be done by now.  And, this would be a completely legitimate business decision.

If Cendant were an owner friendly organization, they could have easily created a points based system that more fairly and effectively mapped supply and demand using basic theory of currency management and pricing 101 with a clean interface between both systems.  They didn't due to a lack of execution skills and a pre-disposition to milking the cash cow called RCI.

I do believe that your commentary about RCI Points is misleading.  I believe it should be aimed at Cendant and not Points in general.  The way you come across is that points systems are inherently bad and weeks systems are not.  That is not the correct conclusion.  The quality of the exchange company has more to do with the philosophy of the management and their ability to execute than the underlying system.

I believe the best attributes of a weeks based system is its simplicity.  People can more easily understand one week in gets one week out.  The best attributes of a points based system is that some weeks have more value than others and you get to see that value to decide if a given exchange is worth it to you.  

Which is better?  What ever works best for you.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 26, 2007)

e.bram said:


> If the point system can't guarantee a specific unit at a specific time, why not just rent. If you can't find what you want, it doesn't cost. With points you have to take something(maybe not what you really want) or loose the points(money). With weeks I know 100% I am getting the unit I want when I want it, if a conflict arises   i can exchange  and salvage something.



You clearly do not understand how point systems work and how to use them most effectively.  Do you own any points?  If not, you are just speculating about them and your speculation is actually quite weak.  Kind of like reading a book on chess and then providing commentory and analysis of a chess match between grandmasters.

By your posts, you have an underlying belief system that the only thing worth owning is a prime fixed week in a location that you like such as an oceanfront unit.  If you own such a unit, you can guarantee that you have that unit and you can rent it or use it.

If that is your philosophy, great.  Keep using it.  It's working for you.  That does NOT mean that there aren't other good timesharing strategies that are equal or better to yours.

I find owning a fixed week to use or rent only rather limiting.  The usage is limited, the flexibillity is limited, the options are limited and the profit potential is limited. To me, it would be equivalent of going to an ice cream parlour and only getting the cherry because you like it the most since it is always on the top of any sundae they make.  With that strategy, you miss out on all of the great flavors, sundaes and creations of the owner.

Personally, I've tried tons of timesharing alternatives (fixed, float, points, rentals, bonus time, direct exchange, major exchange, independent exchange, etc) and purchasing the prime fixed week is about the lowest on the totem pole of worthwhile strategies.  It is just so limiting.  This country and world are so vast with great options and possible experiences, why would anyone want to limit themselves to only one of them year in and year out.

Prime weeks are nice trophy properties, but Point systems make timesharing interesting.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 26, 2007)

I don't share Perry's and Boca's enthusiasm for timesharing pre-Cendent.  I have often said that when I first bought (1996), I could not find a single person who had any experience in timesharing who thought that I was doing the right thing.  It was a dirty affair in which those with more knowledge were taking advantage of those who did not.  As John Chase has pointed out, that was the very reason for creating TUG... to help level the playing field.

TUG became popular among some because it helped them defend themselves; among others because they were looking for tips on how to "trade up" (and take advantage of those who were not in the know -- "loose lips sink ships").

I might also mention that several years after I bought, I did manage to find some happy timeshare owners.  They fell into two groups... those who were part of a points system (usually Fairfield)* or Marriott owners.  The latter group puzzled me in that, while Marriott has nice timeshares, these owners had to pay thousand and thousands more for their units and were also paying considerable more every year in maintenance fees.  When asked, these owners in essence told me that, at least, when you own a Marriott, you know that you are not going to get ripped off when you make a trade.  In others words, they were people with enough money to pay to get out of the dirty mess that timesharing had been.

* [Footnote:  One of my favorite - and revealing - lines came from a female colleague at work.  I discovered that she owned a timeshare (Fairfield Points) and was reasonably happy.  I asked why she had never told me that before.  She responded, "I usually don't tell people that I have a timeshare because I don't want them to think I am gullible."  That tells you something about what she thought the reputation of timesharing was back then.]

Just out of curiosity, Boca? ... Perry? Do you have stories about how timesharing used to be clean and good? Were either of you actually owners during the "good ol' days"? If you were enthusiastic was it because you "found flaws in the system" that allowed you to trade up?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 26, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> Just out of curiosity, Boca? ... Perry? Do you have stories about how timesharing used to be clean and good? Were either of you actually owners during the "good ol' days"? If you were enthusiastic was it because you "found flaws in the system" that allowed you to trade up?



I don't.  I wasn't around in the pre-Cendant days.  I am only giving others the benefit of the doubt that it was better in the good ol' days.  I could be wrong about that.

Lots of people report on this message board that their trades used to be better and now they aren't.  That is my source.

I would reconsider that point of view if you have data that suggests otherwise.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 26, 2007)

*The good old days are right now - they always are...*



"Roger" said:


> <snip>
> Just out of curiosity, Boca? ... Perry? Do you have stories about how timesharing used to be clean and good? Were either of you actually owners during the "good ol' days"? If you were enthusiastic was it because you "found flaws in the system" that allowed you to trade up?



I bought my first timeshare in Dec of 1999 – my son and I were on our first snowboarding adventure to a “Real mountain” and got on our first ever 6-pack chair lift “Payday” at the Park City Mountain Resort.  As we were scooped up I noticed cement trucks pouring a foundation of a condo complex 50’ from where we were – I couldn’t wait to snowboard down and read the sign on the fence that said “MountainSide – a Marriott Vacation Club Resort”.

Well I bought two week 52’s that afternoon and later found out that the timeshare gods were smiling on my son and I that day.

I bought because the salesrep pointed out a cool thing:
*“Snowboard every New Year’s week here or turn in your week to Marriott for 200,000 MRPs and 2 people can fly ANYWHERE in the world and stay 1 week at a top end Marriott hotel”*

I can’t tell you how that rang in my ears and couldn’t wait to sign (the reason I bought 2) – then bought a week 51 a week later.  MountainSide was unique in exchanging for 200,000 MRPs every year and back then 200k MRPs would get 2 folks to ANYWHERE on the planet and a week at top end Marriotts.

Timeshare exchanges were the last thing I wanted to do – I had no idea what they were.

Since then I’ve sold those 3 Marriotts and used my knowledge of timesharing to get right back there during Christmas time for 1/10 the cost.  Thanks II for the fantastic exchanges.

The good old times are NOW!  They always are.


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 26, 2007)

*Exchange alternative*

We do need an exchange alternative.
Whether RW is doing it correctly, I do not know.

If you own a Marriott timeshare, check out www.ownertrades.com.

A direct exchange opportunity with other Marriott owners can be researched there.
No charge for the exchange either.

I have recently sent out a few emails and have already had a decent nibble.

Terry


----------



## wbtimesharer (Jul 26, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Perry, you are so eaten up with this points lunacy that you cannot see clearly, and as usual you distort comments of those you don't agree with to set up a  straw man and knock it down.
> 
> First, RCI Weeks, pre-Cendant was a good system.  The change occured when Cendant corrupted that system with rentals to the general public and diverting Weeks inventory to prop up Points.  This is why the suit against RCI was necessary; to get their hands out of the exchange deposit pot and restore the system to its previous integrity.
> 
> RCI's description of how its exchange system works says they use historical usage data, which includes supply and demand in determining trading power. From observing the workings of the exchange system, I see no reason to dispute that.  Also, all of Bootleg's info was consistent with that.  Your post essentially claims that all red trades the same at the same resort and similarly all white or all blue.  Anyone who has used the exchange system can tell you that your speculation is simply not true.



Caroline,

RCI isn't the only one renting out weeks.  II does it as well as DAE which I just received an email from this morning offering $89 weeks.  From my viewpoint, if you exchange points to get an RCI week, you are in effect exchanging a week that you used to get the points in the first place.  

There are cases where you can get a week for less points than a weeks value, but that is within the 30 day window.  Of course II weeks has the same situation where it opens up all inventory within 60 days prior to check in.  

I still have a hard time understanding the main RCI points bias you have.

Bill


----------



## PerryM (Jul 26, 2007)

*Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*

I watch “America’s got talent” which is a new version of the old talent show – I love that British guy Piers Morgan, we warms my heart! 

Anyway, I view RW’s attempt at breaking into the exchange world like Piers – I’m buzzing the “*X*” button and want the stage hands to use a hook and drag them off the stage – they stink.

*So put me down for a loud BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ*


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 26, 2007)

PerryM said:


> I watch “America’s got talent” which is a new version of the old talent show – I love that British guy Piers Morgan, we warms my heart!
> 
> Anyway, I view RW’s attempt at breaking into the exchange world like Piers – I’m buzzing the “*X*” button and want the stage hands to use a hook and drag them off the stage – they stink.
> 
> *So put me down for a loud BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ*




GONGGGGGGGGGG!

Perry - you funny man!


----------



## PerryM (Jul 26, 2007)

*Baggy pants...*



thinze3 said:


> We do need an exchange alternative.
> Whether RW is doing it correctly, I do not know.
> 
> If you own a Marriott timeshare, check out www.ownertrades.com.
> ...



Correct!

It is my fondest dream for a bunch of folks, via the internet, to take on a large company and bring it to its knees – I actually dream of this stuff.

Setting up a Points based exchange system can be drawn up on one piece of paper and implemented by a few folks.  This could be a huge success.

However, watching the initial reaction to RW, which I abhorred, now actually seems to be right on target – RW is turning out to be a kid trying to dress up and the baggy sleeves and pants now seem to be quite comical.

So I’m awaiting someone at RW stepping in and become the grownup in the organization – I don’t know how long that will take, or if it will even happen.

Until then I can only smile and shake my head.

P.S.
To all those that I excoriated for snubbing RW - I stand corrected.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jul 26, 2007)

In a discussion of exchange company rentals of deposited weeks, I recall Craig Urbine stating flatly that there was no way to successfully operate an exchange company without doing rentals.  There was never any followup discussion of how and why rentals were needed.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 26, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> ...Lots of people report on this message board that their trades used to be better and now they aren't.  That is my source...


My experience is that a lot of people are remembering back to around the year 2000.  (That was post Cendent, by the way.) There was a "golden era" especially for TUGGERs when online trading first started to have traction and RCI allowed you to do large trade ups. 

For a while, shopping on line was like visiting a candy store.  Most timesharers (read non-Tuggers) were depositing their weeks and then and putting in very limited requests.  They were not shopping around.  TUGGERs discovered that there were things that people hadn't thought of asking for that was going untaken.  We used to have periodic bragging threads as to who had gotten the most (often with the least).

Then, the number of people using online trading begin to substantially grow (as reported by RCI/Cedent) and the candy store begin to become depleated.  It was no longer just TUGGERS and a few others that were going through the candy store, but the average Joe on the street who never heard of TUG started doing online trading.  That meant that this secret was out, everyone begin to see what was available, and the good stuff was being grabbed up faster and faster.  Now that trading had become more democratized (and thus fairer), you begin to see TUGGERs complain that timesharing wasn't any fun any more.  (Ironic isn't it?)

In any case, just look at Bill Roger's explanation as to why he started TUG and you will get another view that timesharing was not necessarily fun nor fair pre-Cendent.  It was bad enough to prompt him to begin this site.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 26, 2007)

Now if you really want to go back in time...

I remember back about six or eight years before I first begin to timeshare, I had a neighbor who was given a free week to trade by her employer.  At that time, she (actually her boss) received a mailing toward the end of the month listing timeshare trades that were available.  On the first of the month (I think it was the first) all the trades listed became available, first come first serve.  My neighbor put RCI on speed dial, begin calling RCI at eight in the morning, getting a busy signal, hanging up, hit the speed dial, etc.  She would do this for half hour stints.  She said that she and her husband would pick out thirty to fourty timeshares that look interesting.  By the time she got through (usually late morning or early afternoon), most if not all of what they checked was gone.

I really don't know if ongoing searches were available back then or not.  As I said, my neighbor was depended upon her boss for the deposit and she might not have known all the options available for full time members. In fact, the whole story is a bit fuzzy in my mind in that I was not interested in timesharing at all back then.  This is what I remember being told, however.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 26, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> My experience is that a lot of people are remembering back to around the year 2000.  (That was post Cendent, by the way.) There was a "golden era" especially for TUGGERs when online trading first started to have traction and RCI allowed you to do large trade ups.
> 
> For a while, shopping on line was like visiting a candy store.  Most timesharers (read non-Tuggers) were depositing their weeks and then and putting in very limited requests.  They were not shopping around.  TUGGERs discovered that there were things that people hadn't thought of asking for that was going untaken.  We used to have periodic bragging threads as to who had gotten the most (often with the least).
> 
> ...



I seem to recall those stories in my early days of timesharing.  I didn't completely understand them at that time, but they make much more sense to me now.

Based on what you said, here is my understanding of what really happened.  Basically, prior to the advent of online viewing of inventory, the general timesharing community had very little understanding of how to make an effective exchange request.  That makes sense since they had no information on which to base an exchange request  So, they made bad choices and got weak trades.  As a result, anyone with knowledge of the system could raid it effortlessly.   That makes a lot of sense.  A person with access to inventory can do a much better job at figuring out how to make a request and do massive trade ups.

In essence, a two tier community of exchangers was created.  Those with the knowledge of how to raid the system and those without the knowledge.

That happened for a few years until the cat was so out of the bag that the Golden Goose was threatened to be killed.  So, RCI had to take action.  

In an effort to fix the inherent flaws in a weeks based system where massive trade ups and trade downs were occurring, they attempted to create a more fair method of exchange using a points based system.  After all, a system of exchange that is based on a currency of any kind has proven over time to be far superior of an exchange medium to straight one for one barter.  So, RCI attempted to create a currency-like system that would be fairer in balancing supply and demand and accommodating the nuances of relative value.  They didn't do it well and they got caught up in politics and the profit motive.  But, that makes a lot of sense.

I have never believed that hidden trading power formula were the most effective way to map supply and demand.  I still believe that to be true.

I also believe that third party timeshare exchange companies cannot be successful without free weeks to make up for expiring weeks, bonus weeks and rentals.

Thanks for the history lesson.  It's all starting to make a lot more sense to me now.


----------



## Phill12 (Jul 26, 2007)

thinze3 said:


> I have a question.
> How do you all know that  jayjay owns NO timeshares?
> 
> Jayjay, Ziggy, Sumauri, GinGin, Katmabdu has stated it many times that she owns no timeshares!
> ...




 Terry did you deposit your three bedroom in Colorado just to help the exchange system start to work! This is why many Tug members have made deposits into Redweek exchange!

 Reason I wonder is you said you had no problem renting it. If this is the case then it seems you would make enough money for your winter week to rent almost anywhere else!

 What ever happens I hope you get a fair exchange or something you like from your deposit!


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 26, 2007)

*He an ugly man.*



T_R_Oglodyte said:


> In a discussion of exchange company rentals of deposited weeks, I recall Craig Urbine stating flatly that there was no way to successfully operate an exchange company without doing rentals.  There was never any followup discussion of how and why rentals were needed.





*Damn,   T_R_Oglodyte  - you an ugly man!* :hysterical:




----   Yes that's a Monk seal at Waiohai    ----


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 26, 2007)

SOFTBALLDAD3 said:


> Terry did you deposit your three bedroom in Colorado just to help the exchange system start to work! This is why many Tug members have made deposits into Redweek exchange!
> 
> Reason I wonder is you said you had no problem renting it. If this is the case then it seems you would make enough money for your winter week to rent almost anywhere else!
> 
> What ever happens I hope you get a fair exchange or something you like from your deposit!





I am sad that I can't buy another Waiohai at this time so that next time I can stay for two weeks. As a matter of fact, I think Waiohai ruined my life. All I do since I got back is think about Kauai and read these dumb a$$ posts!

I have used and traded my CL week in years past. Had a little luck trading, but am more particular now. (ever since my first trip to Marriott Maui). I rented it the last two years on RW. I just wanted to do something different and RW is what I knew. I emailed them back and forth a few times and BINGO.

Funny thing, I still email Kylie at RW about various ideas and discussions on these boards. She always responds back. There are changes coming!

All BS aside, I would like to have two years CL deposited with Redweek so I can go somewhere really nice if available (hope Perry & Boca are not listening).

Wouldn't happen to have a Westin St. John to deposit would you? 

.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 26, 2007)

*Oversupply,like cholesterol, comes from two sources Overbuilt or unwanted Treat both*



Carolinian said:


> Ah! But you seem to forget that any significant excess of supply over demand would fit in the dog category, and this certainly applies to much of the year in the overbuilt areas.  The reason a blue week from almost anywhere will trade into Orlando much of the year, for example, is because Orlando is massively overbuilt in timeshare and the resulting oversupply makes them equivalent weeks.  Calling that a trade up is laughable.  It is an even trade because the market says it is even..



Going back two pages (!) as this statement was bothering me. 

The facts about this being an "even trade" don't stand up. Its very easy to prove. 

Take one of those dog, blue time weeks - even if it's the ONLY one there is (and we know there are plenty) so the supply side is as bad as the "overbuilt" area even though it is not overbuilt for prime times. The supply of the dog blue weeks is as great or greater than the not-quite-red week you claim is an equal trade.  Oversupply doesn't require 100's of units but only a few that are unwanted. 

How do we know the blue dogs are unwanted while the pinks have more demand? Easy. Put both up for rent.  While you may not get prime time price for the pink it will rent most of the time.  But the blue is almost impossible to move at any price. There have been documented cases where people try to give the use away and find no takers. 

Thus the claim that overbuilding can make an otherwise higher value trade equal to a true dog week is false.  Oversupply occurs on both types so it is a wash.  Now we're back to location (which the red time will always win - the blue dog is a dog due to poor seasonal location), size and quality to be the tie breakers.  Thus any trade of a dog blue week for anything other than another dog blue week is in fact a trade up and it was the system that fed RCI Weeks until the internet leveled the playing field.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 26, 2007)

*Dumb is good...*



BocaBum99 said:


> I seem to recall those stories in my early days of timesharing.  I didn't completely understand them at that time, but they make much more sense to me now.
> 
> Based on what you said, here is my understanding of what really happened.  Basically, prior to the advent of online viewing of inventory, the general timesharing community had very little understanding of how to make an effective exchange request.  That makes sense since they had no information on which to base an exchange request  So, they made bad choices and got weak trades.  As a result, anyone with knowledge of the system could raid it effortlessly.   That makes a lot of sense.  A person with access to inventory can do a much better job at figuring out how to make a request and do massive trade ups.
> 
> ...




I’ve said for many years that *ignorance is the best friend of the timeshare industry *– that goes for week based exchange systems like II and RCI too.

Sadly, the general public may be getting more internet wise and thus many of the inefficiencies which many of us use to our advantage are drying up.  I don’t know what the critical mass is for II/RCI in terms of ignorant users of their services – I good measure would be those of us who plunder the week systems for upgrades.

The saddest day of my timeshare life will be when Marriott dumps II and offers its own internal exchange system – I’m going to have a long talk with Johnnie Walker that night and make some hard decisions – probably to buy back into the Marriott system for big bucks again.

Until then I can report no slow down in Marriott upgrade exchanges in II – not a bit.  Also, virtually every exchange using my WM credits is an upgrade - it's hard to find a downgrade even if I tried.


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 26, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Going back two pages (!) as this statement was bothering me.
> 
> The facts about this being an "even trade" don't stand up. Its very easy to prove.
> 
> ...





How 'bout RW just put all their weeks up for bid.
Voilai!!
The winning bid is the value of that week. 


  -----   Please don't bother the Monk Seal   ----- :ignore: 


 .


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 26, 2007)

thinze3 said:


> How 'bout RW just put all their weeks up for bid.
> Voilai!!
> The winning bid is the value of that week.
> 
> ...



that would make it market based.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

Those who own primarily to use will find points an annoyance at best.  If they forget to tell RCI 11 months out (and this seems to be a common occurence from some comments from RCI), their weeks gets automatically deposited in the points exchange pool and they have lost it.

As we have discussed at length earlier, Points and Weeks each have their own types of flexibility.  Personally, I prefer the flexibility of Weeks to exchange more than 10 months out so that I can book my ff air tickets at the 11 month window and not lose the opportunity to use my miles,  the flexibility in Weeks to decide when I want to deposit my week rather than having it automatically deposited for me, and the flexible exchange mechanism in Weeks that adjusts for ever changing supply and demand.

Since Points owners are able to loot Weeks inventory in the screwy generic crossover grids, they can use the Weeks system at a discount and not even have to bother with Points reservations within the Points system.   Why would someone on that gravy train complain?  The Points crossovers are a bloodsucking parasite on the back of the Weeks system and needs to be plucked off.





timeos2 said:


> Points can and does provide the guarantee of a specific week/resort and maybe unit if you want to be tied down that much. Usually that is accomplished by a home resort priority.  Then, just like your weeks, if you don't wish to use that resort/week/unit you can exchange just like weeks. But unlike weeks you don't necessarily get one exchange for one week but a pool of points to be used as you see fit rather than being offered a one for one trade. The word flexibility fits. You can pick an exchange that uses up most of your points but even if you only have a few left in "change" you don't lose them. Use them for a small unit or a short week or roll them over to be used with your next years points - the system ensures you get full value out rather than taking your full week in one, often times unequal, trade.  And of course you know going in how much you have to spend in points and what the exchange you want will cost. If you desire a bigger unit or higher value time you can add to your points to get it rather than being told your trade is inadequate.  Flexibility.  Control.  There is a reason you don't see many posts from unhappy points owners while TUG was built at least in part on weeks owners dissatisfaction with that system even in the "good old days".


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

I see that you seem to be backing off on your contention that all red weeks trade the same.

A good example of the impact of supply and demand in weeks-based exchanging is the impact of bulkbanking.  Many Tuggers watch for bulkbanks in areas they usually occur, so that they can snag exchanges while the trading power needed is reduced by the sudden glut of supply.  I know of area in the Caribbean where I can pull a wide variety of weeks with my SA week right after a bulkbanking, but otherwise can only pull hurricane season with SA.  I know there is other inventory there at other times because my European week can see it.  On the other end, I can recall Bootleg's comments about how much the trading power - both in and out - of Manhattan Club declined after MC started bulkbanking.  MC did no favor to their members when they started bulkbanking.  Again, right after a bulkbanking, Tuggers have been able to pull MC with an average SA week.




PerryM said:


> I wholeheartedly agree that when RCI integrated RCI's/Cendant's travel division they were forced into renting, at market prices, timeshares that would normally be used for exchanges.  The question that 12 folks will have to decide is 1) An innocent and stupid mistake 2) An evil plot to take over the world.  I think they will side with the bumpkin idea; they will empathize with RCI.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

That is opposite of the experience of someone long in the timeshare resale business on the Outer Banks.  According to them, in the pre-Cendant days, they also never had anyone cite problems in RCI exchanging as a reason for selling.  Since the Cendant takeover, however, that is an increasingly frequent reason giving.  Sellers are bailing out because exchanging is no longer what it used to be.  Most don't seem to know about the reasons, like the rentals and looting by Points, but they know they can't get the exchanges they used to get anymore.




"Roger" said:


> I don't share Perry's and Boca's enthusiasm for timesharing pre-Cendent.  I have often said that when I first bought (1996), I could not find a single person who had any experience in timesharing who thought that I was doing the right thing.  It was a dirty affair in which those with more knowledge were taking advantage of those who did not.  As John Chase has pointed out, that was the very reason for creating TUG... to help level the playing field.
> 
> TUG became popular among some because it helped them defend themselves; among others because they were looking for tips on how to "trade up" (and take advantage of those who were not in the know -- "loose lips sink ships").
> 
> ...


----------



## wbtimesharer (Jul 26, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Those who own primarily to use will find points an annoyance at best.  If they forget to tell RCI 11 months out (and this seems to be a common occurence from some comments from RCI), their weeks gets automatically deposited in the points exchange pool and they have lost it.
> 
> As we have discussed at length earlier, Points and Weeks each have their own types of flexibility.  Personally, I prefer the flexibility of Weeks to exchange more than 10 months out so that I can book my ff air tickets at the 11 month window and not lose the opportunity to use my miles,  the flexibility in Weeks to decide when I want to deposit my week rather than having it automatically deposited for me, and the flexible exchange mechanism in Weeks that adjusts for ever changing supply and demand.
> 
> Since Points owners are able to loot Weeks inventory in the screwy generic crossover grids, they can use the Weeks system at a discount and not even have to bother with Points reservations within the Points system.   Why would someone on that gravy train complain?  The Points crossovers are a bloodsucking parasite on the back of the Weeks system and needs to be plucked off.



Once again, you seem to imply that a points owner gets a week for free by booking in the weeks side using points.  Not sure how you arrive at that.

Aside from booking within 30 days where the points drop, a comparable week will cost a points owner approximately a weeks worth of points.  Now you may say that "well a person with a blue week can get a red week using points".  Sure, but it will cost them 2 years of points to get it effectively giving up 2 weeks to get 1.

That is exactly the model Redweek is using in its points game.  So am I still confused on how RCI points is the complete model of evil.

Bill


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

''Rentals'' per se are not a threat to an exchange program.  The problem is *rentals from the exchange pool to non-members*

Some independents have rentals of last minute inventory to members, like SFX and DAE.  Not a problem, as it is to members and is short term inventory that members interested in an exchange have had a long shot at but it is still on the shelf.

Some independents like Trading Places and DAE have seperate programs where members or HOA's can put up inventory specifically for rental to anyone.  This is not exchange deposits, so again this is not a problem.

II is apparently renting to the general public from its exchange pool, although on a lesser scale than RCI.




brennumtimesharer said:


> Caroline,
> 
> RCI isn't the only one renting out weeks.  II does it as well as DAE which I just received an email from this morning offering $89 weeks.  From my viewpoint, if you exchange points to get an RCI week, you are in effect exchanging a week that you used to get the points in the first place.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

The points grids for crossover exchanges use broad averages that substantially undervalue prime Weeks resorts and use weeks, but of course substantially overvalue the lesser resorts and weeks in any group.  This allows Points members to cherry pick our inventory at bargain basement rates.
As long as the Points system hand is taken out of our pocket, I have no problem with whatever they do in their own system.  Points needs to stay on its own side of the fence and not come over and steal our prime inventory at fire sale prices.

RCI Points is a screwball system that I would personally never use, but not the ''complete model of evil''.  What is the ''complete model of evil'' is the fraudulent crossover grids.  I do have a real probelm with RCI setting this up so that prime Weeks inventory is looted to prop up Points.  Indeed, RCI itself seems to be using those grids to snatch prime inventory for rentals.




brennumtimesharer said:


> Once again, you seem to imply that a points owner gets a week for free by booking in the weeks side using points.  Not sure how you arrive at that.
> 
> Aside from booking within 30 days where the points drop, a comparable week will cost a points owner approximately a weeks worth of points.  Now you may say that "well a person with a blue week can get a red week using points".  Sure, but it will cost them 2 years of points to get it effectively giving up 2 weeks to get 1.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

For oversupply, we only have to go back to a comment Bootleg, an RCI employee who worked at their computers every workday, frequently made; that the areas where RCI always had a huge oversupply of inventory were what he called MOBW, or Massanutten, Orlando, Branson, Williamsburg.  He also told us that the two resorts with the biggest oversupply of weeks in the entire RCI system were consistently two Gold Crowns in Orlando, one of which was Vacation Village at Parkway.

You can also look at the availibility tables in the European version of the RCI directory.  South Africa has a much for favorable supply/demand curve over much more of the year than Florida.
Given that, in most instances a SA week trading into Orlando is usually a trade down for the SA owner.

Hey, when you are an exchange company that has to move a big glut of weeks in exchange, you take any trade you can get.  That's why almost anything will trade into Orlando much of the year.

If Bootleg was working the RCI European market, he would probably have added the Canary Islands and Costa del Sol to his list of overbuilt areas.  And, hey, the Canaries also have the fiction of being designated ''red all year''.






timeos2 said:


> Going back two pages (!) as this statement was bothering me.
> 
> The facts about this being an "even trade" don't stand up. Its very easy to prove.
> 
> ...


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 26, 2007)

*The best aren't likely to be there*

One of the big problems with all these discussions is the (erroneous) assumption that the top weeks are in fact being deposited to RCI or II weeks and that they are then being "stolen" by illicit rentals to non-members or the greedy points (and weeks) members using the crossover grids.  In fact few of the truly great weeks are deposited now as they are more likely to be used (as stated over and over again about OBX), rented by the owners or they are in a points based system.  What does get deposited now are the middle weeks at best and of course the ever unpopular white and blue weeks. No surprise that the value found by those deposits isn't the top tier. And no surprise that informed owners have stopped blindly depositing the best times into systems that don't give them back fair value and they simply don't trust.  

Yes the selection in weeks at RCI/II isn't what it once was but the time is still out there if you use the right method (points, rentals, direct trades) to get it.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 26, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Those who own primarily to use will find points an annoyance at best.



This is exactly where your lack of any real experience with points systems fails you.

Let's take WorldMark as an example.  This year and next year, I am using my WorldMark account primarily to use.  It is by FAR AND AWAY the BEST way to get what a person wants in a timeshare vacation.

This year, I booked WorldMark Pismo Beach, Marina Dunes, San Francisco and Depoe Bay for successive weeks.  They were the exact dates I wanted in the exact right locations for travelling up and down the coast.

Next year, we are starting with 3-days in Las Vegas, 7-nights in the Rocky Mountains.  7-nights in West Yellowstone with 2 units, 7-nights in Canmore Canada near Banff, 3 nights in Vancouver, 4-nights in Whistler and 4-nights on Vancouver Island.

I got exactly the dates and the units sizes I needed and planned on getting ahead of time.

I challenge ANY weeks based owner using any exchange system or combination thereof to pull that off.  It simply can't be done.

So, to say that points fails owners who own primarily to use is just ignorant of how points systems actually work in practice vs. theory.

In addition, since I do like to exchange, that sweet interface to both RCI and II gets me almost anything I want in II or RCI and that crossover grid couldn't be more rigid or fixed than it is today.

I believe you have said that timesharing no longer meets your needs.  Maybe you should purchase a points package, you may find more places you want to go that you never considered before.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 26, 2007)

*Who knew?*



thinze3 said:


> How 'bout RW just put all their weeks up for bid.
> Voilai!!
> The winning bid is the value of that week.
> 
> ...



This would require an educated consumer - outside of this chat room educated timeshare consumers are few and far between.  We are an oasis of intelligence in a desert of ignorance.

There is a very savvy bunch of folks out there that know exactly what a timeshare is worth - the folks pay cold cash to rent them.  Orbitz and Travelocity can easily be referenced for rental rates that folks actually will pay.

Disney, Marriott, IntraWest, Fairfield and dozens of other developers know exactly what a unit is worth - they all rent out the same exact timeshare units to the public 24/7.  Why look anywhere else?

For an exchange company, especially a Point based one, to look anywhere else is a sign they need to hire Forrest Gump and upgrade their management team.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

Actually, I don't believe the theory that owners of the best weeks are suddenly in large numbers not depositing them.  The reason I don't believe that theory is that looking at actual resort records at a resort where I have access to them, I don't see any change in deposit patterns.  It is still about 10% of summer week like it was five years ago. Also, the rental pattern is not significantly different than it was a few years ago.  A few of the better informed members may have shifted weeks to other exchange companies or to rentals, but not in large numbers when one looks at the big picture. 

''Weeks members using the crossover grids''???????????  Wrong!  That is a one way street.  Points members have automatic access to all Weeks inventory, but Weeks have no right to pick and choose on the Points side.

RCI seems to have quite a bit of good inventory to rent, even at sold out resorts.  If you want to know where the good inventory has gone, it has gone, among other places, to rentals to the general public.




timeos2 said:


> One of the big problems with all these discussions is the (erroneous) assumption that the top weeks are in fact being deposited to RCI or II weeks and that they are then being "stolen" by illicit rentals to non-members or the greedy points (and weeks) members using the crossover grids.  In fact few of the truly great weeks are deposited now as they are more likely to be used (as stated over and over again about OBX), rented by the owners or they are in a points based system.  What does get deposited now are the middle weeks at best and of course the ever unpopular white and blue weeks. No surprise that the value found by those deposits isn't the top tier. And no surprise that informed owners have stopped blindly depositing the best times into systems that don't give them back fair value and they simply don't trust.
> 
> Yes the selection in weeks at RCI/II isn't what it once was but the time is still out there if you use the right method (points, rentals, direct trades) to get it.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

Although you didn't quote the whole paragraph, if you go back you will find that in context it actually refers to RCI Points and its automatic deposit provisions.  RCI itself has admitted that this has led to a lot of unhappy members who didn't remember to opt out from automatic deposit in time.

And I have not said that timeshare does not meet my needs, only that Cendant-distorted RCI no longer does.  But I am quite happy with DAE, and the nice summer European weeks as well as Caribbean weeks they have gotten me.  Not to mention the summer Myrtle Beach, summer So. Cal coast, and summer OBX trades they confirmed for me.

Actually, I am downsizing my timeshare portfolio at the moment, partly because the places at the top of my list of desired destinations for the next few years are topheavy with places where timeshare either doesn't exist or doesn't work well.  Also, I have just accepted a new position which will be based in Europe and that will impact my travel schedule, as well as destinations.  I am looking at longweekends in places like Crimea, Bulgaria, Macedonia/Kosovo, Bosnia, Romania, and Poland more than  week long trips.  I am keeping two weeks, one summer OBX and one in Europe. I will rent the OBX week and may use the European week next year for the first time since I have owned it.



BocaBum99 said:


> This is exactly where your lack of any real experience with points systems fails you.
> 
> Let's take WorldMark as an example.  This year and next year, I am using my WorldMark account primarily to use.  It is by FAR AND AWAY the BEST way to get what a person wants in a timeshare vacation.
> 
> ...


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 26, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Actually, I don't believe the theory that owners of the best weeks are suddenly in large numbers not depositing them.  The reason I don't believe that theory is that looking at actual resort records at a resort where I have access to them, I don't see any change in deposit patterns.  It is still about 10% of summer week like it was five years ago. Also, the rental pattern is not significantly different than it was a few years ago.  A few of the better informed members may have shifted weeks to other exchange companies or to rentals, but not in large numbers when one looks at the big picture.
> 
> ''Weeks members using the crossover grids''???????????  Wrong!  That is a one way street.  Points members have automatic access to all Weeks inventory, but Weeks have no right to pick and choose on the Points side.
> 
> RCI seems to have quite a bit of good inventory to rent, even at sold out resorts.  If you want to know where the good inventory has gone, it has gone, among other places, to rentals to the general public.



When I said weeks members I meant that points owners are also weeks members.

So if nothing has changed in deposits, which you say are few and far between for the prime weeks, yet there are more people chasing them it makes sense they disappear quickly.  Plus I do agree that rentals are a problem - we are in sync on that part.  Bottom line there aren't going to be as many good weeks to grab with lesser weeks anymore.  A weeks member is lucky if a GOOD week can still grab a good to great week. The whites and blues are only likely to find the same in trade.


----------



## e.bram (Jul 26, 2007)

BocaBum99:
In a few weeks I am going to Cape Cod and staying in a 2 br. oceanfront(2 0f 41) unit. How do you do that with points. All rooms face the ocean and the terrace runs across the whole unit and faces the ocean and beach.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 26, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> ''Weeks members using the crossover grids''???????????  Wrong!  That is a one way street.  Points members have automatic access to all Weeks inventory, but Weeks have no right to pick and choose on the Points side.
> 
> RCI seems to have quite a bit of good inventory to rent, even at sold out resorts.  If you want to know where the good inventory has gone, it has gone, among other places, to rentals to the general public.



Perhaps it's time for you to change strategies.  If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

All of the cross over grids in the industry are fine.  Nothing illegal about them.  Nothing wrong with them from a system point of view.  They simply represent the indisputable fact that whoever has the inventory sets the rules in timesharing.  It's no different than any other industry.

You should accept the fact that third party exchange companies are like the long distance companies in the telecommunications industry.  They really aren't needed when large resort groups are created with their own reservation systems.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> When I said weeks members I meant that points owners are also weeks members.
> 
> So if nothing has changed in deposits, which you say are few and far between for the prime weeks, yet there are more people chasing them it makes sense they disappear quickly.  Plus I do agree that rentals are a problem - we are in sync on that part.  Bottom line there aren't going to be as many good weeks to grab with lesser weeks anymore.  A weeks member is lucky if a GOOD week can still grab a good to great week. The whites and blues are only likely to find the same in trade.



RCI shouldn't be giving away free Weeks memberships to Points members.  It is bad enough that they have access to our inventory when we can't similarly pick and choose among theirs, but why should Weeks members subsidize this freebee to Points people?????  Another reason that the Points parasite should be plucked off of the back of Weeks for good.  Let each use their own system.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 26, 2007)

*To use is easy to trade equal is hard (especially with weeks)*



e.bram said:


> BocaBum99:
> In a few weeks I am going to Cape Cod and staying in a 2 br. oceanfront(2 0f 41) unit. How do you do that with points. All rooms face the ocean and the terrace runs across the whole unit and faces the ocean and beach.



If you plan to do that each year you don't need or want points.  You would get plenty of points for that resort/unit & then could still go back there if you didn't want the points in any given year. Otherwise you'd have a ton of points to travel on far easier than you could trade that week for an equal week (and that wouldn't happen often if ever. You'd be trading down 99% of the time with weeks).


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 26, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> RCI shouldn't be giving away free Weeks memberships to Points members.  It is bad enough that they have access to our inventory when we can't similarly pick and choose among theirs, but why should Weeks members subsidize this freebee to Points people?????  Another reason that the Points parasite should be plucked off of the back of Weeks for good.  Let each use their own system.


I presume that when you wrote this, you meant Worldmark (HGVC, Bluegreen, etc.)


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> Perhaps it's time for you to change strategies.  If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
> 
> All of the cross over grids in the industry are fine.  Nothing illegal about them.  Nothing wrong with them from a system point of view.  They simply represent the indisputable fact that whoever has the inventory sets the rules in timesharing.  It's no different than any other industry.
> 
> You should accept the fact that third party exchange companies are like the long distance companies in the telecommunications industry.  They really aren't needed when large resort groups are created with their own reservation systems.



A crossover grid where RCI sets up the looting of one system to subsidize the other is far from ''fine''.  Some have argued, including myself at times, that there is an argument that an exchange company has a similar fiduciary responsibility toward its depositors who provide its inventory (a far different situation from most businesses who create their own inventory with their own capital) that a bank does toward its depositors.  I have been told that this issue may be argued in the RCI class action lawsuit.  If it does, and it prevails, then the crossover grids are in deep doo-doo.

The grids also run  afoul of the consumer protection laws of many states, which are usually very broad and are the laws underlying the present RCI class action. In North Carolina, for example, the relevent statute, NCGS 75-1.1 says:
"unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are declared unlawful"

I would love to see a state AG, who has a lot of pre-litigation tools availible to him, sink his teeth into RCI on the rentals and the interface of Points and Weeks under such a statute.  Unfortunately, the AG is my state is of the opposite political party and I have been too involved in my party to get much of a reception from the decision makers in his office.  It looked like he was going to be vacating his office to run for governor next year, giving my party a better shot and thus me a better shot at having some influence on this issue, but he has backed out of the governors race and will be hard to beat. If lightning strikes, and he is defeated, his likely opponent is an old friend of mine going back to college days, so I should have an in to talk to someone who will listen.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 26, 2007)

e.bram said:


> BocaBum99:
> In a few weeks I am going to Cape Cod and staying in a 2 br. oceanfront(2 0f 41) unit. How do you do that with points. All rooms face the ocean and the terrace runs across the whole unit and faces the ocean and beach.



It's very simple to get a guaranteed Oceanfront unit.  All you need to do is own a points system that let's you pick the unit you book or has a class of units that are oceanfront when you book.  I do it all the time and I am not limited to the same resort every year like you are.  How boring would that be?

I just got back from WorldMark Depoe Bay last Saturday which is on the Oregon Coast.  It reminded me a lot of Maine without the mosquitos.  I had a 2 bedroom Oceanfront unit.  All phase I units are oceanfront.  I can book multiple units, multiple weeks, any week, any checkin day, any number of days more than 7 I want.  Can you do that?

Here are some pictures of the view from my unit.  The whole window in the living room was filled with a view of the Pacific Ocean.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 26, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> A crossover grid where RCI sets up the looting of one system to subsidize the other is far from ''fine''.  Some have argued, including myself at times, that there is an argument that an exchange company has a similar fiduciary responsibility toward its depositors who provide its inventory (a far different situation from most businesses who create their own inventory with their own capital) that a bank does toward its depositors.  I have been told that this issue may be argued in the RCI class action lawsuit.  If it does, and it prevails, then the crossover grids are in deep doo-doo.
> 
> The grids also run  afoul of the consumer protection laws of many states, which are usually very broad and are the laws underlying the present RCI class action. In North Carolina, for example, the relevent statute, NCGS 75-1.1 says:
> "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are declared unlawful"
> ...



Just because you keep repeating it, it doesn't make it true.  Crossover grids are fine.  Are prevalent in the industry.  Will continue.  And, will help to keep 
third party exchange companies afloat given the number of weeks that trade through those interfaces.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 26, 2007)

e.bram said:


> BocaBum99:
> In a few weeks I am going to Cape Cod and staying in a 2 br. oceanfront(2 0f 41) unit. How do you do that with points. All rooms face the ocean and the terrace runs across the whole unit and faces the ocean and beach.



I have a 2 bedroom Oceanfront unit for Labor Day week in Aruba.  I got that using a point system.   I think I'll throw it back since I'll be in Orlando that week in a 3 bedroom Grand Villa at Old Key West.  I got that with a WorldMark Crossover trade.  Crossover grids rule.  Flat rate 12000 credits for any 3 br unit.

I wonder if the Florida state AG is even remotely interested that I was able to get this week.  Nah, I doubt it.  He's got a lot of other things to worry about.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

brennumtimesharer said:


> Now you may say that "well a person with a blue week can get a red week using points".  Sure, but it will cost them 2 years of points to get it effectively giving up 2 weeks to get 1.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill



Not so fast!

I will show you an example from my area of exact how that can be done *within* the Points systems using the points numbers racket for RCI Points resorts *without* having to use 2 weeks.  You don't even have to use the crossover grids, which are a worse scam (on Weeks owners that is).

Blue week 12 (March) 2BR at Sandcastle Village II in inland North Carolina will give you 44,000 points.
Then you trade to an oceanfront resort BIS-Duck to a mid-August red week 33, again 2BR, which cost you only 42,500 points
You have traded 1 for 1 within the Points system a blue week in a lesser destination for a similar size red week at the second highest demand resort in a much more desirable destination, all courtesy of a trade up within the wacky (and corrupt) world of RCI Points.

Oh, you want 4th of July on the beach?  How about trading through RCI Points blue week 47 at Sandcastle Village II, 2BR, which gives you 54,000 points, for BIS-Duck red week 26 or 27, 2BR, which will cost you only 52,500 points.

Any questions about why I want no part of the scam called RCI Points?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 26, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Although you didn't quote the whole paragraph, if you go back you will find that in context it actually refers to RCI Points and its automatic deposit provisions.  RCI itself has admitted that this has led to a lot of unhappy members who didn't remember to opt out from automatic deposit in time.



See, you have no experience in point systems, so you keep drawing the wrong conclusion.  It's funny that you keep doing that.

It is exactly the automatic deposit provision that makes a point system predictable and strong.  I could book the 35-days I did for next summer exactly because 100% of WorldMark inventory is automatically deposited into the system at 13-14 months.  When inventory is predictable, then you can easily book what you need for the days you need it.  You can't do that in a weeks based system.

RCI Points sucks for different reasons that you are articulating.  It sucks because the fees are too high and the inventory is too unpredictable.

Take Bluegreen or Hyatt or other point systems with the following attribute.  These point systems give you access to your fixed week if you elect to use it.  If not, it turns into points automatically and you get the benefits of points.  And, due to their leverage of exchange companies, they tend to get great trading power for their deposits.  The best of all worlds.

The future of timesharing is points based resort groups.  Smaller resorts should start creating and affilating with their own resort groups.  That's the future.  Just like a World without long distance phone companies.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> I have a 2 bedroom Oceanfront unit for Labor Day week in Aruba.  I got that using a point system.   I think I'll throw it back since I'll be in Orlando that week in a 3 bedroom Grand Villa at Old Key West.  I got that with a WorldMark Crossover trade.  Crossover grids rule.  Flat rate 12000 credits for any 3 br unit.
> 
> I wonder if the Florida state AG is even remotely interested that I was able to get this week.  Nah, I doubt it.  He's got a lot of other things to worry about.



Yeah, most AG's are actually just looking for higher office.  They say AG should stand for ''Aspiring Governor''.   However, his Consumer Protection Division may well have an interest if the issue is pointed out to them.  And given the image of timesharing, protecting local folks from a big, bad out-of-state timeshare giant may make good press for his aspirations.  The consumer protection boys do the work, and the AG gets the press. Not a bad deal for him.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

Well when RCI admits they are having a significant problem with members who are unhappy because they fell afoul of that ''wrong conclusion'', it must not be so wrong after all.

'Nuf said!




BocaBum99 said:


> See, you have no experience in point systems, so you keep drawing the wrong conclusion.  It's funny that you keep doing that.
> 
> It is exactly the automatic deposit provision that makes a point system predictable and strong.  I could book the 35-days I did for next summer exactly because 100% of WorldMark inventory is automatically deposited into the system at 13-14 months.  When inventory is predictable, then you can easily book what you need for the days you need it.  You can't do that in a weeks based system.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

While there may be nothing wrong with a fair and balanced grid, that is FAR from what RCI has.   Note Perry's comments earlier about ''upgrading'' from weeks.  Sytematically cheating one system to benefit another is not a ''fair practice'' under consumer protection law, and RCI should get nailed hard on this.




BocaBum99 said:


> Just because you keep repeating it, it doesn't make it true.  Crossover grids are fine.  Are prevalent in the industry.  Will continue.  And, will help to keep
> third party exchange companies afloat given the number of weeks that trade through those interfaces.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

If you check with the only Outer Banks real estate firm that deals in timeshare rentals, you will find that they put whatever rental price the owner wants on the rental.  There is no ''fixed schedule of prices'' .  Whatever it is you are looking at, it is NOT a timeshare rental site, as OBRR, the only timeshare rental site does not post rental prices online, only resale prices.  You have to call their office on rental prices.

Again, another of your apples and oranges comparisions.





"Roger" said:


> On a somewhat related issue, it is hard not to notice when one explores the OBX rental sites (or Colorado lodges or ...) that they have fixed schedules of prices.  This is not because they are Commies.  All these places (as well as RCI, II, Hilton - with their HGVC - Hyatt, Disney, etc.) have long standing records of year to year demand.  They see no need to adjust the rates every week (nor every day).  Providing customers with fixed schedules of prices is simply good business practice.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 26, 2007)

In an earlier post, someone contended that one did not hear points owners complaining.

Well, then, how do the points advocates explain these two sites:

www.scambustersuk.com

www.sunterrafied.co.uk


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 26, 2007)

*ok - europe is like another world*



Carolinian said:


> In an earlier post, someone contended that one did not hear points owners complaining.
> 
> Well, then, how do the points advocates explain these two sites:
> 
> ...



Having read some of those sites it would appear that we in the US are well served by consumer protection laws when it comes to timeshares.  Make that you don't hear many US points owners complaining.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 27, 2007)

*Simple Simon Says...*



Carolinian said:


> I see that you seem to be backing off on your contention that all red weeks trade the same.
> 
> A good example of the impact of supply and demand in weeks-based exchanging is the impact of bulkbanking.  Many Tuggers watch for bulkbanks in areas they usually occur, so that they can snag exchanges while the trading power needed is reduced by the sudden glut of supply.  I know of area in the Caribbean where I can pull a wide variety of weeks with my SA week right after a bulkbanking, but otherwise can only pull hurricane season with SA.  I know there is other inventory there at other times because my European week can see it.  On the other end, I can recall Bootleg's comments about how much the trading power - both in and out - of Manhattan Club declined after MC started bulkbanking.  MC did no favor to their members when they started bulkbanking.  Again, right after a bulkbanking, Tuggers have been able to pull MC with an average SA week.



I do believe all Red RCI Weeks of a certain unit size have 100% the same exact* Trading Power (TP) – I’ve not changed my opinion.

What I’m pointing out is that there is NO need for historic data for complicated forecasting models of supply and demand – a rudimentary single digit of 0=no supply or demand, 1=supply/demand met, and 2=overabundance of supply/demand will do it.

This has nothing to do with TP – it has everything to do with fire sales which temporarily remove the need for TP – just unload the reservation to anything waiting.

e.g.
Unit X is a Red 1BR and will exchange for ANY Red 1BR or 2BR (ongoing searches only) and there are no matches made at that second.

A duplicate Unit X Red 1BR is deposited and the test for TP is now removed – completely.  There is a glut of Unit X Red 1BRs and ANY unit searching will match it.  A match was found with a Unit Y White Studio snaps it up and the Supply/Demand number is back to 1 so TP is now reestablished.

I think RCI works this way and so does II – it’s a 5th grade solution that is easy to program and will result in similar results as we now view.

*I believe that a purely random variable is added to TP to make the results unpredictable which will mask the Simple Simon Simplicity of the system.

There is NO need to make either RCI or II more complicated than that.  All these formulas are secret so why in the world add ANY complexity to them - just make them unpredictable so members can't find patterns to haul them into court over.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 27, 2007)

Perry - You're ''funnin' us'', right?  Taking a position that any Tugger with any experience trading knows is simply absurd and seeing if we will debate with you with a straight face?


----------



## PerryM (Jul 27, 2007)

*It's secret for a reason...*



Carolinian said:


> Perry - You're ''funnin' us'', right?  Taking a position that any Tugger with any experience trading knows is simply absurd and seeing if we will debate with you with a straight face?



If the goal is to make exchanges and no one can challenge a secret system why take the time to make it complex?

I don't believe it is more complex than that - just enough randomness thrown in to make the outcome seem like a mental giant is at work instead of Simple Simon.

P.S.
This goes for the II week system too - it explains all my upgrades which I have no business getting and the exchanges that seem to never happen - it's all smoke and mirrors.  This is why I have 12 ongoing exchanges in II all the time - it's a large enough sample to allow any exchange I want - it just takes time and a little pixie dust.

Somebody show me any logic posted by either RCI or II to refute my assumptions.

P.P.S.
I am more convinced that my assumptions are correct with the mistake II made with WM owners this week - I found exactly the definition of TP that I've been using for quite a while - its exactly what I just posted.  I copyrighted those findings and made them available to all TUG members.

P.P.P.S.
With your thrust for legal actions against RCI I would think you would embrace such a simple and corrupt system - isn't this what we would expect from a company that dishes out all kinds of abuse towards their customers?


----------



## JudyS (Jul 27, 2007)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> In a discussion of exchange company rentals of deposited weeks, I recall Craig Urbine stating flatly that there was no way to successfully operate an exchange company without doing rentals.  There was never any followup discussion of how and why rentals were needed.


But, didn't Craig also say that II wouldn't rent out weeks that should have gone to exchangers, since doing so would ruin their business eventually?  If II is just renting out surplus inventory that would have otherwise gone to waste, then I don't see the problem.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 27, 2007)

You have been listening to timeshare salesmen too long instead of reading the boards at TUG if you think all red trades the same.  

The impact on trading power - both in and out - from bulkbanking is the clearest evidence of the impact of supply and demand in the weeks based exchange system.  It has been discussed on TUG over and over again.  It baffles me that you just don't seem to get it.

Your theory goes against all of the collective experience of Tuggers with exchanging.  Let's see if there is anyone else out there that buys this theory. I doubt that even the usual little group of regular defenders of RCI and points on these boards will even support you on this one.

As to RCI's own comments on how trading power is calculated, you might check the Ask RCI FAQ's, where in #1B, they give the first factor in trading power as 
*"supply, demand, and usage of the week, resort, and area"*

Yes, they may always be lying, but the actual experience of Tuggers, as well as the comments of RCI insider who gave straight answers on these boards, Bootleg, indicate that they are telling the truth this time.




PerryM said:


> If the goal is to make exchanges and no one can challenge a secret system why take the time to make it complex?
> 
> I don't believe it is more complex than that - just enough randomness thrown in to make the outcome seem like a mental giant is at work instead of Simple Simon.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Jul 27, 2007)

*RCI is corrupt - I believe it...*



Carolinian said:


> You have been listening to timeshare salesmen too long instead of reading the boards at TUG if you think all red trades the same.
> 
> The impact on trading power - both in and out - from bulkbanking is the clearest evidence of the impact of supply and demand in the weeks based exchange system.  It has been discussed on TUG over and over again.  It baffles me that you just don't seem to get it.
> 
> ...




If there is anyone here that should believe that RCI is a totally corrupt company it should be you - you seem to defend RCI Weeks as a pillar of virtue.

I believe that the RCI Week system is a totally corrupt system - one worthy of studying and exploiting.  I don't assume for a second it makes any sense or plays by the rules.

Here is my methodology in reverse engineering II and RCI weeks:

1)	I assumed that the system was totally corrupt – no level playing field and favored the exchange company to make as many exchanges possible with as few complaints possible

2)	It would be extremely simple and have few rules – it would be very crude internally and look complex externally

3)	I take the exchange company at it’s word as to the number of seasons (3) they have – it’s that crude

4)	I take the exchange company at it’s word as to the unit sizes – it’s that crude

5)	It would have a randomness added to disguise the rules and that binominal randomness would result in no outrageously hard or easy exchanges – i.e. the randomness would not hurt the exchange company nor favor the member

6)	Supply/demand would simply be a way to remove ALL trading rules if more than 1 reservation existed per unit (This is important to Marriott II exchanges)

7)	The timestamp of when an ongoing search began would be a very key item in awarding a match to multiple ongoing searches

8)	The ongoing searches use this logic and instant searches would not implement supply/demand and convert TP to something looking far more complex to outsiders

The II accident with WM owners earlier this week was 100% exactly what I had guessed TP was in both II and RCI – totally corrupt.  I am now convinced that supply/demand is just as simple and corrupt.

Using the above I have devised strategies designed to embrace those assumptions to maximize a corrupt system as much as I can.  One of them is just plain old brute force – 12+ open exchanges and many contain duplicates requests.  Duplicate requests will be affected by the TP randomness – some will gain TP and some will lose TP; I don’t know which is which until a match is made and then it’s too late anyway.

This is as much as I wish to divulge now and should help folks better their chances at a successful exchange.  I would imagine this logic is different than most members’ perception of how exchanges work.

Can I prove any of the above?  Of course not – neither can anyone refute them – the internal workings of II and RCI are 100% opaque.  If you don’t like my assumptions make your own and see if they work any better – I bet they don’t.


The only reason I can think you need to defend RCI against corruption charges is to keep them viable as you sue the stuffing out of them - that's my guess.

P.S.

Here is the II TP I saw earlier this week - RCI is exactly the same but the numbers are probably different:

****** II Trading Power Defined *******

Red Season:  (Highest demand)
Studio=1 Point
1BR=1.42 Points
2BR=2 Points
3BR=2.42 Points


Yellow Season:  (Medium demand)
Studio=.75 Points
1BR=1 Points
2BR=1.42 Points
3BR=2 Points
4BR=2.42 Points

Green Season:  (Lowest demand)
Studio=.5 Points
1BR=.75 Points
2BR= 1 Points
3BR=1.42 Points
4BR=2 Points*

Copyright (C) Perry Myklebost, permission is given to TUG to reprint.

P.P.S.
The number 1.42 is an example of randomness thrown in to disguise the simple corrupt rules.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 27, 2007)

If your theory had any merit at all (and I still think you are sitting back laughing that anyone would even treat it as something even worthy of debate rather than something devised as a joke), pink would about half the time outtrade prime red, and that simply doesn't match the exchange experience of any Tugger I have ever seen post.

The well documented response of trading power to bulkbankings also is clear evidence that your theory holds not water.

Then there is Bootleg, who had access to RCI's computers and could see what was going on, and whose loyalty to his company was overridden by his loyalty to his customers.  His comments always reflected the operation of a supply/demand based system.  He was not someone who would coverup for his employer on these boards if they were screwing his customers.

Again, where is anyone on these boards who agrees that all red trades the same????????  Where is anyone whose tiger trader is a tiger half the time and a pussycat the other half?????

The RCI system worked well and with integrity until Cendant came along and corrupted the system with some of their new policies.  I agree with you that it has been corrupted now.  That is why I try to do most of my exchanges through DAE.  And I would love to have the old RCI back again, but the odds of that happening are very slim.

Your numbers would appear to be something related to an insider deal between a mini-system and II, which would appear about as rotten as the RCI Points grids, as opposed to anything involving a member using the regular exchange system, but I have not dealt with II or followed II threads that much on t/s boards to compare it with actual Tugger experience with II.  Perhaps some II exchangers could comment.

If you haven't done so, you should post those numbers in a seperate thread directed to II members to get some reaction.  They may not see it here.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 27, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> ... Whatever it is you are looking at, it is NOT a timeshare rental site, ....


That is correct.  I was looking at the what houses were renting for on OBX, not timeshares.  There were tons of fixed schedules and they uniformily lowered prices sometime in August.  One would have to think that was because demand begins to slack at this time.  I see no reason - no reason - to believe that the same is not true for timeshare demand nor do I think these rentals are being run by a bunch of Commies.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 27, 2007)

*Isn't this what we all want - a corrupt RCI Week system? I do.*



Carolinian said:


> If your theory had any merit at all (and I still think you are sitting back laughing that anyone would even treat it as something even worthy of debate rather than something devised as a joke), pink would about half the time outtrade prime red, and that simply doesn't match the exchange experience of any Tugger I have ever seen post.
> 
> The well documented response of trading power to bulkbankings also is clear evidence that your theory holds not water.
> 
> ...



That's NOT what I'm saying - if anything I am saying that ALL Red weeks have a different TP number - exactly what most folks think.

Here is an example of how corrupt rules are used:

I have 2BR reservation for week 52 at resort X.  Let's use IIs TP numbers and as the unit is deposited or used request first the exchange company will start with 2.00 points and randomly pick a number between 1.43 and 2.41 - I pick 2.33, the next time someone makes a similar deposit the computer could pick 1.56 - it's totally random.

That's a completely corrupt system that fulfills the requirement of maximum exchanges with minimum complaints - the definition I believe RCI gave to the IT department and doesn't care if the system is 100% honest or 100% corrupt.

Again I do believe folks when they say RCI is corrupt - I embrace it.

P.S.
These TP numbers are know to the IT department and if show on monitors would simply multiply them by a number, say 1234 and my 2.33 will show up as 2,875.22 and that's the TP RCI employees see - it looks like a legitimate number but it's corrupt.  Next week that seed number might be 1324, then the next week 1432 - its a totally random number within a central tendency.

If you can't believe any of this - that's exactly what RCI wants - you thinking that it is a just system when it's not.

The simplicity of the system is awesome - it requires a simple table to look up size of unit and season which are pre-defined and NO historical data is needed at all.  Again, I am designing a 100% totally corrupt system that your credit card thief would use - why should RCI Weeks be any better - they have no competition to speak of and I don't think they ever promised an honest system - that's our assumption as consumers.

And why should I care - as long as I keep trying and get upgrades I could care less if RCI Weeks is corrupt.  In fact, I'd give them a wink - *that's exactly the system I want, a corrupt system that allows me to upgrade all the time - thanks RCI/II Weeks.*  If I want an honest system I'm forced to use a Points system.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 27, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> ...
> Here are some pictures of the view from my unit.  The whole window in the living room was filled with a view of the Pacific Ocean....


Nice pictures Boca.  I am also glad to see that you are not part of the loose lips sink ships crowd.  You are willing to share the fact that there are some wonderful trades that can be made with points within points.  (No crossover grids.)  Sharing information on how to get the most out of timesharing is how TUG got started.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 27, 2007)

What I find truly amazing is that this is the 217th post of this thread.  The original question was seeking those who have made an exchange with RW.  

I recall only ONE exchange being confirmed.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 27, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> What I find truly amazing is that this is the 217th post of this thread.  The original question was seeking those who have made an exchange with RW.
> 
> I recall only ONE exchange being confirmed.



That would be me - I did my part 

P.S.
Most of this thread, like so many here, is a rehash of rehash.  Sadly, human nature does respond to "Say it enough times and they will believe".


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 27, 2007)

From what I have seen of the hoards of eastern European students who descend on the OBX for summer jobs each year, there is no indication that they are commies in spite of the former orientation of the countries they come from.

The OBX is a good example of how in spite of a bit of overlap timeshare markets, house/cottage rental markets, and hotel markets are different. There has been a trend in recent years to tear down motels on and near the beach to make way for large 10-12BR houses, that some call ''mini-hotels'', which are built for the rental market.  At the same time, there has been no new timeshare inventory added on or near the beach, and in fact some has been lost with the hostile takeover of Bodie Island Beach Club.  Timeshare inventory has declined a little.  Motel inventory has declined a lot.  Rental house inventory has increased a lot.  The result is 1) a very tight hotel market, 2) an underperforming rental house market, and 3) a somewhat improved timeshare rental market.  This shift has helped the timeshare market because there seems to be more overlap between it and the shrunken motel market.  It amazed me recently when someone who had priced the corporate rate over at the Elizabethan Inn in Manteo, 15 minutes drive from the beach.  Until just a few years ago, the corporate rate there was around $30 yearround.  Now in summer it is $99, and I don't know how much higher the rack rate is.  Even in Manteo, they are picking up the overflow of the displaced beach motel crowd.  While the rental house market has gotten overbuilt to the point that quite a few do not cash flow, the hotel market has gotten extremely tight.

Another good example of how these are different markets is articles that have been quoted in The Timeshare Beat from Hawaii and from the Caribbean that have pointed out that in slow economic times, when hotel occupancy falls off quite a bit, timeshare occupancy still stays fairly stable in the islands.

Quite frankly, I don't know many timesharers who going lookinig for 10-12BR units!





"Roger" said:


> That is correct.  I was looking at the what houses were renting for on OBX, not timeshares.  There were tons of fixed schedules and they uniformily lowered prices sometime in August.  One would have to think that was because demand begins to slack at this time.  I see no reason - no reason - to believe that the same is not true for timeshare demand nor do I think these rentals are being run by a bunch of Commies.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 27, 2007)

As usual, you assert your beliefs as facts, even when they blatantly conflict with real, known facts.  What blows your fairy tale out of the water is the fact the TP is NOT random.  Pink weeks do NOT outtrade bright red weeks half the time, as would happen under your belief.

Indeed even among good red weeks there is an obvious pecking order.  I have owned all three summer holidays weeks on the OBX, Memorial Day, July 4, and Labor Day, and I can tell you for a fact that July 4 definitely outtrades the other two all the time, although the other two are no slouches on trades themselves.

Your II numbers are clearly some sort of crossover grid to some system, NOT real TP numbers, so why do you keep referring to them as TP numbers?





PerryM said:


> That's NOT what I'm saying - if anything I am saying that ALL Red weeks have a different TP number - exactly what most folks think.
> 
> Here is an example of how corrupt rules are used:
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Jul 27, 2007)

*Monopolies are corrupt - so is RCI; this is good!*



Carolinian said:


> As usual, you assert your beliefs as facts, even when they blatantly conflict with real, known facts.  What blows your fairy tale out of the water is the fact the TP is NOT random.  Pink weeks do NOT outtrade bright red weeks half the time, as would happen under your belief.
> 
> Indeed even among good red weeks there is an obvious pecking order.  I have owned all three summer holidays weeks on the OBX, Memorial Day, July 4, and Labor Day, and I can tell you for a fact that July 4 definitely outtrades the other two all the time, although the other two are no slouches on trades themselves.
> 
> Your II numbers are clearly some sort of crossover grid to some system, NOT real TP numbers, so why do you keep referring to them as TP numbers?




RCI is certainly a monopoly and II can be viewed as one for their customers too.  *One thing that monopolies have in common is that they become corrupt over time* – no need to worry about competition or even law and order.  I firmly believe that RCI/II have entered this stage – totally corrupt.  

*This is great news to those of us who know how to play their game.*

One must view RCI/II as a “black box”  we can only view what goes in and what comes out.  There are published variables:

1)	3 colored seasons
2)	Unit sizes
3)	Relaxation of rules at 45-days/59-days for II

That’s it – we can make inferences about:
1)	How early a unit is deposited or search begins
2)	Supply and demand of some kind

Observable outputs:
1)	Upgrades
2)	Equal trades
3)	Downgrades
4) No exchanges

From these few facts we must then guess what the rules RCI/II use to make exchanges.

There is one more piece of information that we can also use:
1)	The system is 100% honest
2)	The system is 100% dishonest (corrupt)

I’ve designed models for RCI/II using all the above – I find the simplest, most efficient, and most profitable is a corrupt based exchange system.  If a 100% honest system was used by RCI/II upgrades would be few and far between.  In fact there would be many no exchanges, I believe RCI reports 95% successful exchanges - a result I would expect from a corrupt system.

My empirical experience shows 100% upgrades – many here report a lopsided tendency of upgrades versus equal or downgrades.  Who gets the downgrades or no exchanges is a great question – I’m assuming that new members to RCI/II might get a lot of downgrades and even this could be kept track of.

So I set out and accomplished what I wanted – a completely 100% corrupt week based exchange system.  I see no reason why RCI/II should not and have not adopted a simple system that maximizes their profits.

Can I prove any of this – no.  I just am using the tendencies of monopolies – they eventually become corrupt; take advantage of them if you can.  There is a reason why all of the internal workings of RCI/II are secret - and it has nothing to do with allowing the competition an advantage and everything to hide the corporate corruption.

P.S.
All the "evidence" you cite just reenforces my assumption as to the corruption of the company.  Maybe the lawsuits will start to uncover this - for those of us who upgrade all the time I hope not.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 27, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> ...
> Another good example of how these are different markets is articles that have been quoted in The Timeshare Beat from Hawaii and from the Caribbean that have pointed out that in slow economic times, when hotel occupancy falls off quite a bit, timeshare occupancy still stays fairly stable in the islands.


Your confusing occupancy with demand.  Yes, Hawaian timeshare occupancy is very stable, but demand in November is about one-fourth that of the peak weeks in July. 

Put differently, if occupancy is now the criteria that RCI should be using for  their point charts, then you should be ridiculing RCI for having lower point totals for OBX in October (and probably even November given your prior comments about occupancy at OBX timeshares) compared to mid-July.

I stick with my contention -- tourist demand for OBX begins to slack off in mid-August and the rental charts reflect that. That is why RCI lowered the point total give to a late August week.  It is not a bright red summer week.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 27, 2007)

Again, you are basing your assertions a segment of the market that is tending toward overbuilt - the mostly large rental homes - that only slightly overlaps the timeshare market, either rental or exchange.

A better indicator is to go to the OBX in late October or early November.  You will see many ''no vacancy'' signs on motels.  One HOA last year setting up their annual meeting in early November, for example, was unable to find vacant units at that resort or two others they worked with for any board member other than the president.  They even had trouble finding hotel rooms they could rent for board members.  Many places were full, and they had to commit to two nights to get one of the two hotels with a few rooms to give them reservations.  Now, if they had tried to rent a large rental home, they would certainly have had better luck at that time of the year.  It is simply different markets.

Occupancy and demand ARE two different things.  Weeks with full or close to full occupancy are hardly dogs, but if demand only slightly exceeds supply, they are not going to be tiger traders, either.

In the Fall and Spring, demand doesn't abruptly change over one weekend.  It rises or falls, depending on which season, gradually week by week.  




"Roger" said:


> Your confusing occupancy with demand.  Yes, Hawaian timeshare occupancy is very stable, but demand in November is about one-fourth that of the peak weeks in July.
> 
> Put differently, if occupancy is now the criteria that RCI should be using for  their point charts, then you should be ridiculing RCI for having lower point totals for OBX in October (and probably even November given your prior comments about occupancy at OBX timeshares) compared to mid-July.
> 
> I stick with my contention -- tourist demand for OBX begins to slack off in mid-August and the rental charts reflect that. That is why RCI lowered the point total give to a late August week.  It is not a bright red summer week.


----------



## thinze3 (Jul 27, 2007)

Can anybody answer the question with a yes?


----------



## PeelBoy (Jul 27, 2007)

Yes, I did, but everyone is busy with their microeconomics 101 tutorial.  I am trying to grab another week in SFO from Redweek, so no time to join the discussion.  I will get an F from the prof.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 28, 2007)

PeelBoy said:


> Yes, I did, but everyone is busy with their microeconomics 101 tutorial.  I am trying to grab another week in SFO from Redweek, so no time to join the discussion.  I will get an F from the prof.



Yours is the exchange that I was referring to when I said that we have only 1 report of an exchange.  We have a handful of reports of deposits and dozens of reports of inquiries.

Given that fact, I'd say that the RW exchange program isn't doing very well yet.  It's hard to imagine that early adopters of a RW type exchange service would be anything other than tuggers.

If after 2 months, we don't have a significant increase in reported exchanges, I wouldn't touch that exchange system with a 10 foot poll.  I'd rather re-upp with RCI for 30 more years.  This is especially in light of their recent email blast.  One theory for success for RW was that their 1M registered users would be very helpful to stimulate a market for exchanging.  If that proves to be a bad assumption, they really don't have much going for them.

This does not suggest doom for the service, though.  Good entrepreneurs are very good at changing direction midstream when current strategies don't work.

Redweek needs to get free developer or HOA deposits in the US Market.  Or, they need to allow their technology to be used by someone who does have the inventory.  That is the key strategic problem that faces them at this point in time.  My vote would be for a partner program with HOAs to offer free rental and resale listings for their members in exchange for an affiliation agreement.  That would be hot.  Maybe I should patent a business process or apparatus for that idea so that I can get a cut when they eventually do it.

Otherwise, they will just become the bidshares of timeshare exchange companies.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 28, 2007)

PeelBoy said:


> Yes, I did, but everyone is busy with their microeconomics 101 tutorial.  I am trying to grab another week in SFO from Redweek, so no time to join the discussion.  I will get an F from the prof.



If you spend most of your points and get what you want, you get at least a passing grade.  I'd give you at least a "B".  I give you an "A+" for your eBay purchase.

To get an "A" for exchange, you must grab an extraordinarily hard to get exchange like a Harbourside Atlantis for winter or get a great exchange location and resort unit for around $300-400 or less of total cost including exchange fees.


----------



## Phill12 (Jul 28, 2007)

PeelBoy said:


> Yes, I did, but everyone is busy with their microeconomics 101 tutorial.  I am trying to grab another week in SFO from Redweek, so no time to join the discussion.  I will get an F from the prof.




 It seems your about the only one so far to state you did take a trade! Many tuggers have helped out by making deposit of a second unit they own and many have checked their points but that is about it!

 I think most people are trying to help Redweek with their program by making a deposit. People like myself belong to II and can do much better in fair trading with II.

 I did get my points offer and decided after seeing nothing we would want we would trade with II for Maui 2008! I know RW can not do that for my family! Maybe someday but not right now! :hysterical: 

 I see that much of their resorts are international right now and I have no idea of the ratings of any of those units. I see there are 79 US resorts listed and 270 International ones listed. Don't know if that is good or bad since we are not interested in going out of the country any time soon!

 People that travel alot out of the US would know more but to me it seems many International  owners jumped on the chance to dump their resorts into the RW pool!  :whoopie:


----------

