# RCI ?  With TPUs isn't RCI weeks almost the same as RCI points?



## Bill4728 (May 6, 2013)

With TPUs isn't RCI weeks almost the same as RCI points?  Yes, you can't do less than full weeks, but is there really any difference any more?

TIA


----------



## ronparise (May 6, 2013)

rci points is fixed, ie your week is worth a certain number of points, With RCI weeks The number  of tpu is variable

But the concept is the same ie deposit a week and get points or tpu to use for an exchange.


----------



## MichaelColey (May 6, 2013)

It definitely blurs the distinction, but there are some differences:

1) With points, everything is automatically combined into one big bucket.  With RCI Weeks, you have to pay to combined.

2) There's far more inventory in RCI Weeks (although RCI Points can access RCI Weeks inventory, so that is really a wash).

3) RCI Points has a much bigger variation in pricing based on the unit size.  With RCI Weeks, it's not much more for larger sizes.  For instance, in RCI Points, it might be 25k for a 1BR, 50k for a 2BR or 75k for a 3BR lockoff.  With RCI Weeks, it might be 14 TPU, 16 TPU and 18 TPU.  Thus, in RCI Weeks it's much better to split lockoffs and deposit.

4) RCI Points have to be used inside a certain window.  With RCI Weeks, you can combine indefinitely, effectively letting you roll deposits over as far out as you like.

5) Ongoing Searches are only available in RCI Weeks.  (You can do ongoing searches in points, but it only applies to RCI Weeks inventory.)

6) I'm not sure if everyone sees the same results, but I get MUCH better value exchanging through RCI Weeks than I do with RCI Points.  I know part of this depends on unit sizes.  For instance, a 2BR DVC property typically costs me about $600 in RCI Weeks (exchange fee, Disney fee, and cost of my TPUs) while in RCI Points it costs me about double that.


----------



## chriskre (May 6, 2013)

There are some resorts that you rarely see in weeks but appear more often in points.
Hilton New York properties is an example.
Also there is more Manhattan Club inventory in points than weeks many times.

Disney also tends to sit longer in points than in weeks where it is snapped up in a day.

You have a home group resort advantage in RCI points for booking before everyone else.  My home group is pretty big.  Nice if I ever need it. 

You can turn a dud TPU week into more RCI points if there is something you want in points using points for deposit PFD.   

There is no 1 in X restrictions in points.

I don't follow much else but I'm sure there are some other differences.  

Oh, You get a free weeks account with your RCI points membership so you can have access to both worlds in RCI.   Exchange fees are a little lower in points.


----------



## Smokatoke (May 6, 2013)

MichaelColey said:


> 3) RCI Points has a much bigger variation in pricing based on the unit size.  With RCI Weeks, it's not much more for larger sizes.  For instance, in RCI Points, it might be 25k for a 1BR, 50k for a 2BR or 75k for a 3BR lockoff.  With RCI Weeks, it might be 14 TPU, 16 TPU and 18 TPU.  Thus, in RCI Weeks it's much better to split lockoffs and deposit.



Always wondered about this...

Also as Chriskre states you can take a dud of a TPU trader and it be stellar in points value (Vegas resorts) which have lower MF.

I am going to get three vacations (maybe 4  ) out of my 98K points this year, so you if take 200 x 3 in exchange fees plus the 700 in MF, thats 1300 divided by 3, thats 433 a week or about $62 a night. And two of the units will be 2 bedrooms.

A DVC will cost me about 1.25 years in points for a 2 bed, or about $1100 all said and done. So yes a little more expensive it seems than TPU in that case


----------



## PeelBoy (May 6, 2013)

Some resorts require point reservation to pay house keeping fees.


----------



## MichaelColey (May 6, 2013)

chriskre said:


> Also there is more Manhattan Club inventory in points than weeks many times.


Also, that's one of the few that (for me) is cheaper in RCI Points.  I think that's primarily because it's Studios and 1BR units, and it's close to 60 TPU in RCI Weeks, which makes it $800 (plus housekeeping fees) for me.


----------



## Carolinian (May 7, 2013)

That is why some of us call the new RCI ''Weeks'' Points Lite, as it is just another points system.   It has different rules, yes, but it is still a points system.  Valuations between the two systems can vary wildly.

Ultimately, RCI is likely to merge its two points systems into one, and the result will probably be like airline ff mergers for members - more the worst of both worlds than the best of both worlds.


----------



## chriskre (May 28, 2013)

Smokatoke said:


> A DVC will cost me about 1.25 years in points for a 2 bed, or about $1100 all said and done. So yes a little more expensive it seems than TPU in that case



But $1100 for a 2 bedroom DVC is still quite a bargain compared to renting DVC points from an owner or booking directly with the Mouse.  Keeping it all in perspective either way TPU's or RCI points is still a great deal.  



PeelBoy said:


> Some resorts require point reservation to pay house keeping fees.



If you go for less than a week then yes many resorts charge housekeeping fees but some forget to.  :ignore:



MichaelColey said:


> Also, that's one of the few that (for me) is cheaper in RCI Points.  I think that's primarily because it's Studios and 1BR units, and it's close to 60 TPU in RCI Weeks, which makes it $800 (plus housekeeping fees) for me.



It definitely seems that studios in high demand places are almost a steal in RCI points.  Especially DVC which I have seen for 28.5K or 1 bedrooms for 42.5K RCI points.  



Carolinian said:


> That is why some of us call the new RCI ''Weeks'' Points Lite, as it is just another points system.   It has different rules, yes, but it is still a points system.  Valuations between the two systems can vary wildly.
> 
> Ultimately, RCI is likely to merge its two points systems into one, and the result will probably be like airline ff mergers for members - more the worst of both worlds than the best of both worlds.



I don't see how or why they are going to merge these two systems when they are both working so well for them now as is. 

It gives the developers something "exclusive" to upgrade to and also is a huge profit center for those resistant to points systems.  You can still do the old style week to week exchanges if you want to.


----------



## timeos2 (May 28, 2013)

Carolinian said:


> That is why some of us call the new RCI ''Weeks'' Points Lite, as it is just another points system.   It has different rules, yes, but it is still a points system.  Valuations between the two systems can vary wildly.
> 
> Ultimately, RCI is likely to merge its two points systems into one, and the result will probably be like airline ff mergers for members - more the worst of both worlds than the best of both worlds.



Except perhaps in the very earliest days it has always  been a points system (trade power, etc.) but until TPU's a hidden one. Thankfully TPU's expose it thus giving control to owners as it should have been all along. Maybe all those off season dog weeks that are killing values now would have been handled better if buyers knew they were nearly worthless & not worth the purchase prices or ongoing fees.


----------



## Larry (May 28, 2013)

chriskre said:


> There are some resorts that you rarely see in weeks but appear more often in points.
> Hilton New York properties is an example.
> Also there is more Manhattan Club inventory in points than weeks many times.
> 
> ...



There are several really nice resorts that I have only seen and confirmed with my RCI points account. Usually I stay for at least 7 nights, but a few resorts were I wanted to stay additional nights I just added them through RCI points which were reserved to add to a weeks reservation. The couple of times that I did this the resort also allowed us to stay in the same unit so having both weeks and points works for me.


----------



## gnorth16 (May 28, 2013)

In weeks the increase in TPU's from a studio or 1BR to a 2BR is usually minimal.  For someone travelling with a family and requires extra room, weeks has worked well for us.


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 1, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> Except perhaps in the very earliest days it has always  been a points system (trade power, etc.) but until TPU's a hidden one. Thankfully TPU's expose it thus giving control to owners as it should have been all along. Maybe all those off season dog weeks that are killing values now would have been handled better if buyers knew they were nearly worthless & not worth the purchase prices or ongoing fees.



The weeks that ''kill value'' are those that have more supply than demand, and that includes many/ most weeks in the overbuilt areas.

Semi-transparent systems, like TPU's, are the worst for reflecting true value, as they have both the mechanism plus the incentive to distort values.  Fully transparent systems like the mechanism, because the full method of setting values in transparent, and non-transparent systems like the old RCI weeks lack the incentive, since the trade value is not published,

Both RCI Points and Points Lite have way too many areas where values are either artificially propped up or artificially depressed by RCI with its thumb on the scales,  It is easier to see in Points Lite, when you can compare the number of points lite (TPU's) that weeks are normally given for deposit with what the same weeks cost to trade into.  I remember one week that another Tugger discovered in an overbuilt area where RCI was giving 50 TPU for a deposit but had weeks available at the very same time to trade into for 10 TPU's.  That is a clear example of an overpointed week.


----------



## MichaelColey (Jun 1, 2013)

Those situations are fairly rare, and they actually work to OUR favor because we can CHOOSE whether to deposit (if they're "overpointed") or exchange into (if they're "underpointed").


----------



## gnorth16 (Jun 2, 2013)

RCI makes up for the "overpointing" with reservation fees, combination fees and and annual fees, not to mention the points that never get used.  I think RCI is doing fine for themselves.:ignore:

Carolinian, you complain when it costs more to trade into the same resort *AND *you complain when it costs less to trade into the same resort....  I know you hate RCI, but c'mon!!! The one good thing about RCI and you have to rip that apart too???

I don't know of a situation where I would actually trade back into my own week in RCI.  Maybe to a lower season/TPU, a larger room or a resort down the street... There are too many places and resorts to check out without having to go back to the ones I own.  If I wanted to stay there, I would have bought to stay and not trade...


----------



## MichaelColey (Jun 2, 2013)

gnorth16 said:


> I don't know of a situation where I would actually trade back into my own week in RCI.  Maybe to a lower season/TPU, a larger room or a resort down the street... There are too many places and resorts to check out without having to go back to the ones I own.  If I wanted to stay there, I would have bought to stay and not trade...


I actually did an exchange back into the same resort once, but ended up cancelling it when an even better deal came along.  I had split a lockoff and exchanged the 1BR side for a 3BR unit.  It was probably not as prime of a week (I bank the best weeks I can), but it was a week I wanted to go, so it was prime for me.

For half of the MF (and actually it was less than that since it was 1BR out of a 3BR lockoff) plus an exchange fee, it was cheaper than just using my week.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 2, 2013)

gnorth16 said:


> RCI makes up for the "overpointing" with reservation fees, combination fees and and annual fees, not to mention the points that never get used.  I think RCI is doing fine for themselves.:ignore:
> 
> Carolinian, you complain when it costs more to trade into the same resort *AND *you complain when it costs less to trade into the same resort....  I know you hate RCI, but c'mon!!! The one good thing about RCI and you have to rip that apart too???
> 
> I don't know of a situation where I would actually trade back into my own week in RCI.  Maybe to a lower season/TPU, a larger room or a resort down the street... There are too many places and resorts to check out without having to go back to the ones I own.  If I wanted to stay there, I would have bought to stay and not trade...



I exchange back into Vacation Village at Parkway..I own a triennial fixed week (lockoff) that I deposited as two one bedrooms and got 40000 tpu. I trade back in to one bedrooms at 5tpu...so in three years 8 weeks for a $750 mf plus 8 exchange fees of $200 each) so roughly $42 a night.


----------



## chriskre (Jun 2, 2013)

Larry said:


> There are several really nice resorts that I have only seen and confirmed with my RCI points account. Usually I stay for at least 7 nights, but a few resorts were I wanted to stay additional nights I just added them through RCI points which were reserved to add to a weeks reservation. The couple of times that I did this the resort also allowed us to stay in the same unit so having both weeks and points works for me.



Don't you love it when a plan comes together?  



Carolinian said:


> The weeks that ''kill value'' are those that have more supply than demand, and that includes many/ most weeks in the overbuilt areas.
> 
> Semi-transparent systems, like TPU's, are the worst for reflecting true value, as they have both the mechanism plus the incentive to distort values.  Fully transparent systems like the mechanism, because the full method of setting values in transparent, and non-transparent systems like the old RCI weeks lack the incentive, since the trade value is not published,
> 
> Both RCI Points and Points Lite have way too many areas where values are either artificially propped up or artificially depressed by RCI with its thumb on the scales,  It is easier to see in Points Lite, when you can compare the number of points lite (TPU's) that weeks are normally given for deposit with what the same weeks cost to trade into.  I remember one week that another Tugger discovered in an overbuilt area where RCI was giving 50 TPU for a deposit but had weeks available at the very same time to trade into for 10 TPU's.  That is a clear example of an overpointed week.



I know you find it hard to believe but people do actually want to go to those "overbuilt" places often.  Have you stayed in an Orlando resort lately? Obviously not since you live in Europe.   

When you come home at night from the parks in Orlando you can't find a parking space many times and have to walk several buildings to your home.  So I don't know about this theory of "overbuilt".  I think it's more of a "build it and they will come," cause they sure are coming to Orlando.    

I saw the same thing in Vegas this past week too.  Although I don't really want another Vegas resort in HGVC, Hilton is no dummy.  Elara was packed this last week and their Miracle Mile was also packed.  The valet at the Marriott Grand Chateau was busy nonstop day and night as was the city.

These "overbuilt" areas are the playgrounds of America.  There is definitely demand.  Luckily there is supply too.


----------



## chriskre (Jun 2, 2013)

ronparise said:


> I exchange back into Vacation Village at Parkway..I own a triennial fixed week (lockoff) that I deposited as two one bedrooms and got 40000 tpu. I trade back in to one bedrooms at 5tpu...so in three years 8 weeks for a $750 mf plus 8 exchange fees of $200 each) so roughly $42 a night.



40K TPU's.  
Did you have your coffee yet?  :rofl:


----------



## timeos2 (Jun 2, 2013)

chriskre said:


> I know you find it hard to believe but people do actually want to go to those "overbuilt" places often.  Have you stayed in an Orlando resort lately? Obviously not since you live in Europe.
> 
> When you come home at night from the parks in Orlando you can't find a parking space many times and have to walk several buildings to your home.  So I don't know about this theory of "overbuilt".  I think it's more of a "build it and they will come," cause they sure are coming to Orlando.



It is incredible that with the exception of about 10-12 weeks each year the demand for Orlando is nearly year round. Some of the traditionally worst weather times - Thanksgiving / Christmas / New Years - are nearly THE highest demand as virtually every family is off from school, likes to travel as a family for the Holidays and love to see Disney / Universal.  Even south Florida has a relatively low demand that time of year yet Orlando thrives. 

Then there are February recesses, Spring Break, Easter, all of summer - it hardly ever ends. It does seem that no matter how many resorts get built - especially if they are higher end and well maintained - the guests show up to fill them.  



chriskre said:


> I saw the same thing in Vegas this past week too.  Although I don't really want another Vegas resort in HGVC, Hilton is no dummy.  Elara was packed this last week and their Miracle Mile was also packed.  The valet at the Marriott Grand Chateau was busy nonstop day and night as was the city.
> 
> These "overbuilt" areas are the playgrounds of America.  There is definitely demand.  Luckily there is supply too.



It is incredible to see the renaissance of the "Miracle Mile" area of Planet Hollywood. It certainly isn't due to the old Tower of Terror / now Elara, but that has helped. Overall the epicenter of the Strip has shifted to that area with City Center and others all located there. PH has benefited and it's nice to see. It has really helped Polo Towers, Grand Chateau, Grand Desert, Elara (now that it's not a Wastegate anymore it will hopefully be a nice timeshare and no longer a party palace) and a few others. They offer relatively new or well maintained/upgraded  properties that find themselves in the middle of the true up and coming area people want to be based in. 

It is another reason that the isolated and poorly sited Wyndham Desert Blue Bad Moon Rising Resort is a bad move by that group. It's in completely the wrong area. Too bad they didn't just do more in the empty land across from the Grand Desert instead.


----------



## chriskre (Jun 2, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> It is incredible that with the exception of about 10-12 weeks each year the demand for Orlando is nearly year round. Some of the traditionally worst weather times - Thanksgiving / Christmas / New Years - are nearly THE highest demand as virtually every family is off from school, likes to travel as a family for the Holidays and love to see Disney / Universal.  Even south Florida has a relatively low demand that time of year yet Orlando thrives.
> 
> Then there are February recesses, Spring Break, Easter, all of summer - it hardly ever ends. It does seem that no matter how many resorts get built - especially if they are higher end and well maintained - the guests show up to fill them.
> 
> ...



Yes Orlando has truly rebounded quite nicely.
Shoot even at the height of the recession Disney resorts were still packed to the gills.

I have stayed at Wyndhams, Westgates, Bluegreen, HGVCs, Starwoods, Disneys, Marriotts and they are all packed everytime I go.  I go to Orlando about 5 to 6 times a year, sometimes more and that has been my experience since I started timesharing to Orlando about 10 years ago.  To me they are not overbuilt.  Many times I have to request to be moved because of all the noise.  Now I always request a top floor corner unit if possible. 

There is a reason developers keep developing in "overbuilt" areas and it's because there is demand.  It's just that the mouse haters don't want to admit that half of this country actually prefers to vacation in a fantasy world instead of the real world.  

And I was staying at Grand Chateau which is a nice resort if it wasn't for the small pool.  Even Marriott is expanding this resort in an "overbuilt" area.
Somebody must be buying.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 9, 2013)

Sorry but I have to comment.  I love Orlando.  Think it's a great place to visit.  However, on a relative basis it is ridiculous the fact that a place like VV@P is commanding 30-50 TPUs for 1BR deposits that are literally available for RCI extra vacation purchase right now at any time of the year for about $300 with the exception of week 52 which is $650 now but will probably be reduced later.  I don't care how beautiful that resort is - and I admit I've never been there.  I think when people comment about over supply, it's not to say that Orlando isn't a popular place to visit, but rather that it doesn't seem to be too difficult to confirm a unit there - pretty much ever and certainly never for a 1BR.  As an example for comparison, a member gets more trading power for a 1BR at VV@P at many times throughout the year than a 3 BR deposit over MLK week in the mountain estates section of Smugglers Notch ski in / out property or 4th of July. That seems completely flawed to me.


----------



## timeos2 (Jun 9, 2013)

You see RCI is a business. If they couldn't use the deposits they wouldn't offer the TPU's. They offer them because despite the great quantity of inventory it is in an area that has an equally high demand both for trades & rentals. Seasonal areas or those with limited attractions just don't offer that same bang for the buck. What we think "should" cost equal or more their years of experience says different. If you own there enjoy it!


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 9, 2013)

> If they couldn't use the deposits they wouldn't offer the TPU's. They offer them because despite the great quantity of inventory it is in an area that has an equally high demand both for trades & rentals.



Actually I think this is contrary to the point I'm making, unless you are trying to say that a 3 BR Smugglers Notch unit (in the luxury section no less) wouldn't rent instantaneously for $323 over MLK weekend?  I'm pretty sure it would.  It would rent immediately at $647 also (that's the rate RCI is charging for a 1BR VV@P week over Christmas - and at the moment there is plenty of availability).    

I'm making a comparative point. The system is in one way or another fundamentally flawed in granting 30-50 TPUs for each 1BR deposit at VV@P, while simultaneously only giving 29 TPU to an owner for depositing a highly desirable 3BR luxury ski in / ski out estate in Vermont over MLK weekend.  No I don't own a unit at Smugglers Notch, I just thought this was a good example...  I'm in no way suggesting that VV&P isn't a nice place to stay - the point I'm making is that there is just no way a 1BR unit there at almost any time of the year is in greater demand than a 2 or 3 BR peak week elsewhere.


----------



## timeos2 (Jun 9, 2013)

If the demand was there then developers would be building there. It isn't. Beyond 10-15 weeks per year most are too plentiful now despite the limited number and regardless of quality. They offer what they need to in order to obtain enough inventory for demand. If it were really higher - like Manhattan Club is - then 60 TPU's would be offered. They base it on the ability to have it used reliably. Again what we think things should be apparently isn't what actual experience says it will be.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 10, 2013)

> If the demand was there then developers would be building there. It isn't. Beyond 10-15 weeks per year most are too plentiful now despite the limited number and regardless of quality. They offer what they need to in order to obtain enough inventory for demand.



Yes - I completely agree with you - I was not suggesting that it would be more worth a developers time to build in Vermont than Orlando.  Weeks 13-20 and 36-50are completely dead weeks in the Vermont ski areas.  RCI should give crappy TPUs for those weeks.  

But the example I gave was for week 3 in Vermont, which is prime ski season (holiday weekend) on the east coast.  Most east coast families that ski wouldn't pull their kids from school, but would gladly take the exchange for the long weekend anyway.  The point is, MLK weekend is generally occupied to capacity at all the mountainside ski resorts (IMO the ski in/out feature is similar to the choice of staying DVC or not in Orlando.  There is only so much mountain front space to build on (just like beach front except even more limiting in available space).  

Going back to my point, if you lock out any random week at VV&P (take your pick of any non holiday week when kids are in school 1-52) RCI still gives more combined TPUs for two 1BR deposits than they do for that 3BR MLK week deposit at Smuggs which is a near impossible exchange made even more difficult by RCI's system (owners end up renting on redweek instead).


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 10, 2013)

ronparise said:


> I exchange back into Vacation Village at Parkway..I own a triennial fixed week (lockoff) that I deposited as two one bedrooms and got 40000 tpu. I trade back in to one bedrooms at 5tpu...so in three years 8 weeks for a $750 mf plus 8 exchange fees of $200 each) so roughly $42 a night.



RCI employee Bootleg, who used to post here and on other timeshare sites, told us that VV@P had the biggest oversupply of weeks for the demand in the entire RCI system.  The excessive number of TPU's they are given is Exhibit A in proving the total and thorough corruption and dishonesty in the awarding of trading power in RCI Points Lite.  That is especially true when you compare those numbers with ones for things that are darned hard to get and rarely appear online like summer UK weeks.

Actually the numbers of points lite (TPU's) required to get an exchange into a week seem to be more honest than those awarded for a deposit.  When it regularly costs more for an exchange than you are given for a deposit, then RCI is rigging the system and cheating those owners.  When it regularly costs less points lite to trade in than an owner gets for a deposit, then RCI is deliberately overpointing that resort.  VV@P is a classic example of the latter.  I remember when one Tugger found where RCI gave 50 points lite to deposit one of the better weeks there, but at the very same time had exchanges on offer for the very same week for 10 points lite.  That is a thoroughly and completely corrupt system, and a big reason I no longer give deposits to RCI.


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 10, 2013)

chriskre said:


> There is a reason developers keep developing in "overbuilt" areas and it's because there is demand.  It's just that the mouse haters don't want to admit that half of this country actually prefers to vacation in a fantasy world instead of the real world.



Exchange demand is not an issue developers care about or consider.  They care about what areas have good tour flows and what areas have reasonable construction costs when looking to site resorts.  That is why they build in Orlando.  If they looked at unfulfilled exchange demand, they would look at places like London, San Francisco, and St. Barths.

When they have to use much lower points lite levels than they gave for deposits to try to fill resorts or rent them for peanuts, that clearly shows the area is overbuilt for timeshare exchange demand.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 10, 2013)

> That is especially true when you compare those numbers with ones for things that are darned hard to get and rarely appear online like summer UK weeks.



Sure - this would be another good example like the mountainside ski resorts that are in high demand.  



> Actually the numbers of points lite (TPU's) required to get an exchange into a week seem to be more honest than those awarded for a deposit.



We just set up our RCI account, so I haven't deposited yet and can't see that side.  Wow - is it really true that in many cases the points needed to trade in are different from the points granted to the depositor?  Does it ever work the other way - where RCI gives you less points for your deposit than it takes to trade in for the same week?  I just assumed whatever I was seeing on the deposit calculator is what it would take for a trade...


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 10, 2013)

> Exchange demand is not an issue developers care about or consider. They care about what areas have good tour flows and what areas have reasonable construction costs when looking to site resorts. That is why they build in Orlando.



I'm sure this is true to an extent.  Lots of places have challenging ordinances to get past which limit development.  Still other places (like the ski resorts) are seasonal and the down season makes them unattractive for building.  

However, Orlando is definitely one of the most popular travel destinations in the world in terms of total visitors.  It's just that there are now so many places to choose from.


----------



## MichaelColey (Jun 10, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> Sorry but I have to comment.  I love Orlando.  Think it's a great place to visit.  However, on a relative basis it is ridiculous the fact that a place like VV@P is commanding 30-50 TPUs for 1BR deposits that are literally available for RCI extra vacation purchase right now at any time of the year for about $300 with the exception of week 52 which is $650 now but will probably be reduced later.


When, other than Week 51/52, school holiday weeks, and peak summer weeks, does RCI give more than 20-30 TPU for an Orlando unit?


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 10, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> We just set up our RCI account, so I haven't deposited yet and can't see that side.  Wow - is it really true that in many cases the points needed to trade in are different from the points granted to the depositor?  Does it ever work the other way - where RCI gives you less points for your deposit than it takes to trade in for the same week?  I just assumed whatever I was seeing on the deposit calculator is what it would take for a trade...



Yes, it does work both ways.  Some resorts are systematically overpointed and some systematically underpointed.  Those who own the former love and defend the system.  Those who own the latter, not so much.


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 10, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> I'm sure this is true to an extent.  Lots of places have challenging ordinances to get past which limit development.  Still other places (like the ski resorts) are seasonal and the down season makes them unattractive for building.
> 
> However, Orlando is definitely one of the most popular travel destinations in the world in terms of total visitors.  It's just that there are now so many places to choose from.



The Canary Islands in Europe has much in common with Orlando, and it too has long been overbuilt in timeshare.  It is a nice place to go, and I enjoyed my last DAE exchange there. But if I had not had a deposit I needed to use, I would have rented instead.


----------



## lindner (Jun 10, 2013)

So you are arguing that Wyndham, which owns RCI, is deliberately rewarding those who buy timeshare from VV@P, their competition?  Why would they do that?

I think the point that Ron Parise was making is that he can break up a two bedroom lockout and deposit each side separately, and thus get lots of TPU.  This is not unique to VV@P, and is a good strategy with RCI, which typically has little difference in TPU cost between one and two bedroom units.



Carolinian said:


> RCI employee Bootleg, who used to post here and on other timeshare sites, told us that VV@P had the biggest oversupply of weeks for the demand in the entire RCI system.  The excessive number of TPU's they are given is Exhibit A in proving the total and thorough corruption and dishonesty in the awarding of trading power in RCI Points Lite.  That is especially true when you compare those numbers with ones for things that are darned hard to get and rarely appear online like summer UK weeks.
> 
> Actually the numbers of points lite (TPU's) required to get an exchange into a week seem to be more honest than those awarded for a deposit.  When it regularly costs more for an exchange than you are given for a deposit, then RCI is rigging the system and cheating those owners.  When it regularly costs less points lite to trade in than an owner gets for a deposit, then RCI is deliberately overpointing that resort.  VV@P is a classic example of the latter.  I remember when one Tugger found where RCI gave 50 points lite to deposit one of the better weeks there, but at the very same time had exchanges on offer for the very same week for 10 points lite.  That is a thoroughly and completely corrupt system, and a big reason I no longer give deposits to RCI.


----------



## gnorth16 (Jun 10, 2013)

Bonk2boy - My question to you is where was your most recent purchase and why did you purchase there???  I am sure that the "overpointing" in RCI weeks had something to do with it, didn't it???


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 10, 2013)

lindner said:


> So you are arguing that Wyndham, which owns RCI, is deliberately rewarding those who buy timeshare from VV@P, their competition?  Why would they do that?
> 
> I think the point that Ron Parise was making is that he can break up a two bedroom lockout and deposit each side separately, and thus get lots of TPU.  This is not unique to VV@P, and is a good strategy with RCI, which typically has little difference in TPU cost between one and two bedroom units.



They control Wyndham and who they affiliate with, so in fact from some previous posts, it seems if anything their own resorts may tend to be underpointed.  That is because it is a captive audience.

Big developers have often had an ability to wheel and deal with RCI, and it is this corrupt politics that results in the overpointing.  I heard from the horse's mouth (one of the execs there) about Barrier Island Stations politicking RCI over points values in RCI Points.  They were unhappy with the number RCI gave them, rejects RCI Points, then teamed up with a coalition of other developers which politicked RCI for higher numbers, which RCI gave them to bring them all in.  It is unlikely that this is the only time that has happened.

If you look at underpointed resorts, they tend to be sold-out resorts.  If you look at overpointed resorts, they tend to be still in developer sales.  The term ''sold our resort'' has a sinister double meaning in the corrupt world of RCI value assignments.  This was entirely predictable, and I in fact did predict it, from going to hidden valuatiions to open valuations, but keeping the method of assigning value hidden.  This creates both the incentive and the ability to corrupt the valuation system.

RCI's main objective is to keep developers in sales feeding them new members.  The relative value in an exchange system of what they are selling is a more minor point.

I haven't looked recently, but several times I have looked up the number, VV@P by itself had approximately the same availability as all ~200 resorts in South Africa COMBINED, yet they underpoint SA and overpoine VV@P.

The other danger with RCI's valuation system is that because it is based on corrupt side deals rather than underlying fundamentals, those overpointed resorts might just drop like a stone if RCI's reasons for the overpointing should change.


----------



## MichaelColey (Jun 10, 2013)

Carolinian said:


> I haven't looked recently, but several times I have looked up the number, VV@P by itself had approximately the same availability as all ~200 resorts in South Africa COMBINED, yet they underpoint SA and overpoine VV@P.


Here's the solution: Buy an overpointed VV@P, resale for next to nothing, then use it to exchange into the underpointed South Africa resorts.

Or, if you're a masochist, do the opposite.

You can complain about inefficiencies in the system (and every exchange company has them), or you can use them to your advantage.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 10, 2013)

> When, other than Week 51/52, school holiday weeks, and peak summer weeks, does RCI give more than 20-30 TPU for an Orlando unit?



Again - I'm new at this RCI thing, but I was looking at 1BR deposits and all were about 20-30 TPUs, so if you locked out a 2BR you would get well more than 30 TPUs pretty much any week of the year.  In my example I was comparing to a 3BR luxury resort during a week that would almost definitely be operating at full capacity.    



> Here's the solution: Buy an overpointed VV@P, resale for next to nothing, then use it to exchange into the underpointed South Africa resorts.



I doubt SA is in "high demand" relative to supply.  It's a lengthy, expensive flight for pretty much every RCI member to get there (even from Europe). This is nothing like a prime summer week in London or a slopeside ski week (MLK) in Vermot.


----------



## chriskre (Jun 10, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> Again - I'm new at this RCI thing, but I was looking at 1BR deposits and all were about 20-30 TPUs, so if you locked out a 2BR you would get well more than 30 TPUs pretty much any week of the year.  In my example I was comparing to a 3BR luxury resort during a week that would almost definitely be operating at full capacity.t.



Well since you are new to all this I suggest you think of it as possibly rci does.
a skier may have purchased this smuggs week to use or rent and rarely if ever exchange.
An Orlando owner more than likely did an impulse timeshare purchase.
They will more than likely be using rci for their vacation accommodation needs.

How much is rci going to make off of that 3 bedroom deposit?  One $200 exchange fee.
with a lock off unit they will make at least two exchange fees or $400 or even more if they rent out the two units.
   Of course they may make a few more exchange fees from the original depositor. 

So I personally believe that rci sees that Orlando unit more valuable to them than a more valuable ski week that they will rarely see.  

its all about making more money for them not making you happy with them or not.
dont take it personal. Its just business.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 10, 2013)

> Bonk2boy - My question to you is where was your most recent purchase and why did you purchase there??? I am sure that the "overpointing" in RCI weeks had something to do with it, didn't it???



Good question - and the answer is yes I absolutely did my homework.  I wasn't about to get royally "screwed" by this system!  But on the other hand, I'm not a major risk taker and so I wasn't about to buy somewhere that I would be stuck with an unsellable / unrentable week if the trading rules ever change (which I know they often do - i.e. those South Africa owners). So we bought a 3BR summer float week in South Carolina at Presidential Villas instead.  I felt it was a much safer bet.  

First if you are asking - would that MLK week in a 3BR at Smuggs be more attractive to me personally than the studio side of my unit in the summer which gets more TPUs?  Absolutely it would!  As I said, I think the slopeside properties seem way undervalued (it's no wonder most owners chooses to rent them).    

However, there is a big difference between the true demand for the unit I bought and the ones at VV&P.  There isn't a single unit available at my resort for an extra vacation until September 1st and that's a studio (RCI wants $657for it).  Nothing is available in July or August at all.  Of course, once the kids go back to school in September there are tons of cheap rentals.   In comparison, you could have your pick of 1BR RCI getaways to VV@P for $269 or $305 all summer long.  Why would anyone bother wasting their TPUs if they can rent so cheap (don't you pay $199 to exchange anyway?) Unless I'm missing something the only logical answer possible is that the amount of TPUs required would have to drop so so low to ever make it worthwhile.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 10, 2013)

> How much is rci going to make off of that 3 bedroom deposit? One $200 exchange fee. with a lock off unit they will make at least two exchange fees or $400 or even more if they rent out the two units.



This is an excellent point and I'm sure true.  It seems that Interval is much more generous about larger unit size.  Unfortunately - our mistake developer purchase happened to be an II resort and also a 1BR 

But either way, I still don't see the harm in offering more trading power for a really nice unit that a owner would typically use or trade.  Why not give those owners more of a reason to deposit?


----------



## vckempson (Jun 11, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> However, there is a big difference between the true demand for the unit I bought and the ones at VV&P.  There isn't a single unit available at my resort for an extra vacation until September 1st and that's a studio (RCI wants $657for it).  Nothing is available in July or August at all.  Of course, once the kids go back to school in September there are tons of cheap rentals.   In comparison, you could have your pick of 1BR RCI getaways to VV@P for $269 or $305 all summer long.  Why would anyone bother wasting their TPUs if they can rent so cheap (don't you pay $199 to exchange anyway?) Unless I'm missing something the only logical answer possible is that the amount of TPUs required would have to drop so so low to ever make it worthwhile.



You need to ponder a bit more and look further to understand the massive demand at Orlando.  Yes, there are hundreds of units at VV@P available at any given time.  But... and this is a big "but",  they are almost all taken, almost all the time, before the current check-in date.  All those hundreds of units may not be snapped up 6 months month's in advance, but they are almost always snapped up prior to the travel date, making them much more valuable to RCI than Smuggs.  

Since you don't have an equal number of units at Smuggs, it's hard to compare the demand.  Also, more Smuggs units are used by owners, I'd guess.  There's probably less that make it to RCI for Trade than VV@P.  That doesn't mean there is greater overall demand, only greater usage by owners.  Common sense suggests that if you ski, you've got a 6-8  week period where you have to go.  But then again, there are far, far fewer skiers than sun worshipers and Mickey worshipers.  

As to Pres Villas at Plantation, I don't think they deserve the TPU's they get.  It's not on the ocean, and it's not really close to the ocean.  I've been going to Myrtle Beach for years and it just doesn't make sense to me that Pres Villas get the crazy high TPU's that they get.  That's much more out of whack than VV@P.  But hey, I'm not one to complain ad nauseam about it like some here do.  Maybe it's better to just own at these crazy high TPU places and enjoy the ride... Oh yea, I do own at them both.


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 11, 2013)

I do not refer to things done deliberately to goose the system as ''inefficiencies''.  Further, I don't see it as wise to tie oneself down to overpointed resorts, as the fundamentals do not justify the overpointing, and if the extraneous reasons change, and they could overnight, then you are stuck with something you do not want and is useless.

I am one who follows the TUG mantra of owning where you want to go.  I have traded into VV@P some years ago for one of those obligatory but rare trips for a young family member to visit the mouse.  It is not somewhere I would want to go regularly.  The much better solution is to use a different exchange company that does not play these games with trading power.  My first exchange with one of my summer UK weeks in SFX got me a 2BR in London.  I have also gotten some very nice exchanges with DAE.  I am simply not going to sell weeks at resorts I like simply to get the flavor of the month at RCI for RCI trading only.  Buying on what the TPU is today is building on quicksand because TPU values are not based on the fundamentals of supply and demand.




MichaelColey said:


> Here's the solution: Buy an overpointed VV@P, resale for next to nothing, then use it to exchange into the underpointed South Africa resorts.
> 
> Or, if you're a masochist, do the opposite.
> 
> You can complain about inefficiencies in the system (and every exchange company has them), or you can use them to your advantage.


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 11, 2013)

We have had this discussion before.  There is no question that there is a lot of demand for Orlando, as most families want their young children to visit the mouse a time or two.  But the issue is not just demand alone. As always in economics, the key is demand relative to supply.  Orlando's problem, and why it is overbuilt, is that in spite of a very healthy demand, that demand is overwhelmed by massive supply, and it gets worse every year.  The same is true in places like the Costa del Sol in Spain, the Canary Islands, and Massanutten.

Since you own at VV@P and want its inflated trading power to continue, I know you will always try to defend it.  But I look at a solid source of RCI information, RCI employee and former Tugger Bootleg, who told us that VV@P was the resort with the biggest oversupply of inventory in the entire RCI system.  Only a corrupt valuation system, pandering to connected developers, gives it the trading power it has now.





vckempson said:


> You need to ponder a bit more and look further to understand the massive demand at Orlando.  Yes, there are hundreds of units at VV@P available at any given time.  But... and this is a big "but",  they are almost all taken, almost all the time, before the current check-in date.  All those hundreds of units may not be snapped up 6 months month's in advance, but they are almost always snapped up prior to the travel date, making them much more valuable to RCI than Smuggs.
> 
> Since you don't have an equal number of units at Smuggs, it's hard to compare the demand.  Also, more Smuggs units are used by owners, I'd guess.  There's probably less that make it to RCI for Trade than VV@P.  That doesn't mean there is greater overall demand, only greater usage by owners.  Common sense suggests that if you ski, you've got a 6-8  week period where you have to go.  But then again, there are far, far fewer skiers than sun worshipers and Mickey worshipers.
> 
> As to Pres Villas at Plantation, I don't think they deserve the TPU's they get.  It's not on the ocean, and it's not really close to the ocean.  I've been going to Myrtle Beach for years and it just doesn't make sense to me that Pres Villas get the crazy high TPU's that they get.  That's much more out of whack than VV@P.  But hey, I'm not one to complain ad nauseam about it like some here do.  Maybe it's better to just own at these crazy high TPU places and enjoy the ride... Oh yea, I do own at them both.


----------



## gnorth16 (Jun 11, 2013)

vckempson said:


> As to Pres Villas at Plantation, I don't think they deserve the TPU's they get.  It's not on the ocean, and it's not really close to the ocean.  I've been going to Myrtle Beach for years and it just doesn't make sense to me that Pres Villas get the crazy high TPU's that they get.  That's much more out of whack than VV@P.  But hey, I'm not one to complain ad nauseam about it like some here do.  Maybe it's better to just own at these crazy high TPU places and enjoy the ride... Oh yea, I do own at them both.



Well said... and me too!!!


----------



## gnorth16 (Jun 11, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> Good question - and the answer is yes I absolutely did my homework.  I wasn't about to get royally "screwed" by this system!  But on the other hand, I'm not a major risk taker and so I wasn't about to buy somewhere that I would be stuck with an unsellable / unrentable week if the trading rules ever change (which I know they often do - i.e. those South Africa owners). So we bought a 3BR summer float week in South Carolina at Presidential Villas instead.  I felt it was a much safer bet.
> 
> First if you are asking - would that MLK week in a 3BR at Smuggs be more attractive to me personally than the studio side of my unit in the summer which gets more TPUs?  Absolutely it would!  As I said, I think the slopeside properties seem way undervalued (it's no wonder most owners chooses to rent them).
> 
> However, there is a big difference between the true demand for the unit I bought and the ones at VV&P.  There isn't a single unit available at my resort for an extra vacation until September 1st and that's a studio (RCI wants $657for it).  Nothing is available in July or August at all.  Of course, once the kids go back to school in September there are tons of cheap rentals.   In comparison, you could have your pick of 1BR RCI getaways to VV@P for $269 or $305 all summer long.  Why would anyone bother wasting their TPUs if they can rent so cheap (don't you pay $199 to exchange anyway?) Unless I'm missing something the only logical answer possible is that the amount of TPUs required would have to drop so so low to ever make it worthwhile.



Don't just look at the "true demand" for a resort, especially when there are peak seasons involved.  *Summer is about the only time I would not go to Orlando* due to humidity and crowds.  South Carolina has a larger shoulder and low season than Orlando, of which I would likely only go in the spring.  

As for all the getaways in RCI...When a resort is still in active sales, they deposit extra units into getaways and many spill over into exchanges.  VV@P wants all the rooms to be full so more people are taking tours and buying retail.  Other units in getaways are shoulder season that RCI  may not be able to get an exchange for.  These are what you see for Presidential Villas.  As well, VV@P is 50X bigger than Prez Villas (Guessing), so there should be more of VV@P anyways.


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 11, 2013)

Some here are pure exchangers and discount the common TUG mantra of buying where you want to vacation.  That is not to say use it all the time, but at least if exchanging blows up, you have a resort that you enjoy going to.

When RCI plugs in extraneous factors to their valuation system, like the politicking of big developers still in sales, instead of the real fundamentals of supply and demand, then the whole system is a house of cards that could come tumbling down at any time.  I would hate to be holding something like VV@P when the music stops.  RCI has a history of sudden dramatic alterations in trading power, so that is all the more reason to follow the TUG mantra.

I remember the post by one Tugger who owned a spring week at Allen House, a resort that undoubtedly has one of the strongest supply / demand curves in all of timesharing.  Yet it is a sold out resort, and the sinister double meaning RCI gives to that term was in full view as to Allen House.  He was only offered 30 something TPU points lite for his Allen House week.  He compared that with the 60 he would need to trade into Manhattan club virtually any time of the year (maybe a few 58's) and Manhattan Club gets a lot more exchange availability than Allen House.  Allen House is always taken by ongoing searches, while Manhattan Club frequently has many units available online.  Some 1BR's at VV@P have been reported on TUG as getting 50 points lite.  Looking at these data points, it is clear that RCI valuation system is extremely corrupt, and sold out resorts are systematically screwed while big developers politick RCI for many more points lite than they deserve.  That Allen House owner's solution was to give it to DAE which gave him two credits for it.


----------



## MichaelColey (Jun 11, 2013)

Carolinian said:


> I do not refer to things done deliberately to goose the system as ''inefficiencies''.  Further, I don't see it as wise to tie oneself down to overpointed resorts, as the fundamentals do not justify the overpointing, and if the extraneous reasons change, and they could overnight, then you are stuck with something you do not want and is useless.
> 
> I am one who follows the TUG mantra of owning where you want to go.


While "owning where you want to go" is a common piece of advice, many of us do quite well exchanging.  Fortunately, there's not just one "right" way of doing timeshares.

Rather than just owning where I want to go, I like to balance a number of different criteria and have as much flexibility as possible in how I use my properties.  I like to have low up-front costs, reasonable MFs, flexibility of lockouts, flexibility of exchanging into RCI, II and the smaller exchange companies, flexibility to rent, and flexibility to use.  Then, I like to get the maximum value that I can out of what I own.  There's nothing like enjoying an exchange that cost you $300-500 (inclusive of prorated upfront costs, MFs and exchange fees) when you know that owners there pay 5 times that much.  And when those opportunities disappear, I have other options.  And when/if all of the opportunities disappear, I have virtually no upfront costs invested and don't feel obligated to keep them.


----------



## gnorth16 (Jun 11, 2013)

I think maybe broadening the "Buy where you want to go" needs to be expanded to "buy something that can be easily disposed" instead.  There will always be changes in TPU's, changes from II to RCI and vice versa, associations dropping resort (and vice versa).  Timesharing is always changing.  If you can't handle a bit of risk, renting seems like a better choice. Until then, I am enjoying the Gold Crown 2 and 3BR's for under $400 per week.:whoopie:


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 11, 2013)

Some of the oldtimers on these boards, especially with some knowledge of exchange companies would likely differ with you.  I well remember some of the discussions back in those days, that the most valuable weeks for RCI were those which generated a chain of exchanges.  That brings in more exchange fees that ones that sit online forever, and in the end have to be almost given away, like many weeks in overbuilt areas. A deposit of a week that is immediately taken by an ongoing search, usually nets another week of similar quality, or at least it did before the TPU system, and that one also likely goes immediately.  An Allen House deposit is likely to produce a chain of exchanges and exchange fees, while a 1BR at VV@P will often sit online until they rent it late in the game for peanuts or give it for exchange for less TPU's than they gave for its deposit.

From a business standpoint, an Allen House deposit is far more valuable to an exchange company than VV@P.  My UK resort does not have the horsepower of Allen House, but it rarely shows up online, and the manager tells me that most weeks given to any exchange company are confirmed for exchange immediately.  Many other UK resorts are like that, and consequently if looking at real world supply and demand, or at profit potential for the exchange company, they should have much better trading power than VV@P.  With RCI, they do not, and that is because they are sold out resorts, which do not have the ability to politick RCI for higher values like the big developers do.





chriskre said:


> Well since you are new to all this I suggest you think of it as possibly rci does.
> a skier may have purchased this smuggs week to use or rent and rarely if ever exchange.
> An Orlando owner more than likely did an impulse timeshare purchase.
> They will more than likely be using rci for their vacation accommodation needs.
> ...


----------



## gnorth16 (Jun 11, 2013)

Carolinian said:


> I well remember some of the discussions back in those days, that the most valuable weeks for RCI were those which generated a chain of exchanges.



"Overpointing" also brings in a series of exchanges and several exchange fees, guest certs and combination fees...

You really do hate RCI don't you?!?!?!?

From me, RCI gets

1) A 5 year membership fee
2) 5 (soon to be 7 or 8) exchange fees per year
3) 1 combonation fee (per year or second year)
4) 2 or 3 guest certs for family and friends per year

If all weeks were in the 30 TPU range, I wouldn't have left II.  Why are you concerned about  what is best for RCI??? They have a business model which they are making a handsome profit.  If it wasn't working, they would change it......which they tweak for their best interests when necessary...


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 11, 2013)

> As to Pres Villas at Plantation, I don't think they deserve the TPU's they get. It's not on the ocean, and it's not really close to the ocean. I've been going to Myrtle Beach for years and it just doesn't make sense to me that Pres Villas get the crazy high TPU's that they get. That's much more out of whack than VV@P. But hey, I'm not one to complain ad nauseam about it like some here do. Maybe it's better to just own at these crazy high TPU places and enjoy the ride... Oh yea, I do own at them both.



Let me explain the difference then.  If I do an II search right now for SC in July or early August very little if anything is going to come up.  If I do the same thing in RCI, I'm guessing the result is similar (as I said, I haven't deposited anything yet RCI but I do know II has nothing).  I cannot purchase an II getaway or RCI extra vacation in SC at this time of year (beach front or not / gold rated or not) without dropping a significant sum of money.  The same holds for the NC beach area, Cape Cod, Ocean City or any east coast beach town north of Florida for that matter.  These areas are in extremely high demand at that time of year, and there are lots dive studios in Delaware, Cape Cod, Virginia Beach and Ocean City receiving huge TPU amounts for summer weeks.  These resorts may not be particularly nice, but all of them (including Presidential Villas) earns the right to be a strong trader in a system that is truly based on supply and demand.  Put bluntly, RCI doesn't ever have to offer prime summer units at Presidential Villas or any of these beach town locations for anything close to $269.  If they did, the unit wouldn't sit in inventory for more than 10 minutes before being grabbed.  In contrast, almost every week is available for $269 or $305 (full kitchen) at VV&P, and I have trouble understanding why anyone would ever use 20-30 TPUs plus spend $199 to confirm a unit they could rent as a getaway for $269? 

As for the ownership comparison, I believe Presidential Villas is a much safer bet than VV&P long term for more reasons than demand assessment.  Push comes to shove, 3BR units anywhere are rare - especially in a beach area in July.  If I ever needed to, I think I'd have a reasonably good shot at renting my unit to cover the $700ish maintenance.  If this property ever switched affiliations to Interval, I also think it would still trade well.  

The real risk with buying VV&P in my view is that without the trading power, that ownership is truly a liability.  Even going by the "own where you like to stay" logic - a 2BR unit at VV&P requires over $700 in maintenance per year plus tax right?  So long as RCI is renting out 2BR units for under $400 at pretty much any time, owning for use at VV&P is not cost effective.  That place needs to maintain it's strong trading power to warrant even being an average place to own.  Also - if it ever moved over to II, I don't think it would be as good a trader either.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 11, 2013)

> think maybe broadening the "Buy where you want to go" needs to be expanded to "buy something that can be easily disposed" instead. There will always be changes in TPU's, changes from II to RCI and vice versa, associations dropping resort (and vice versa). Timesharing is always changing.



When I did my research I concluded:

minimize risk = buy something that trades well and could also be rented if all else fails  

That's why I went with Presidential Villas over VV&P or Grandview (can't expect to ever have any shot to cover maintenance on a rental if RCI is renting for half your maintenance). Plus I much preferred a 3BR unit for actual ownership use (getting to pick your exact week comes in handy when you are traveling with a big group and accommodating a lot of schedules which is when we would choose to use our week and not trade).  But heck what do I know?  As I said - I'm very new at this!


----------



## gnorth16 (Jun 12, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> When I did my research I concluded:
> 
> minimize risk = buy something that trades well and could also be rented if all else fails
> 
> That's why I went with Presidential Villas over VV&P or Grandview (can't expect to ever have any shot to cover maintenance on a rental if RCI is renting for half your maintenance). Plus I much preferred a 3BR unit for actual ownership use (getting to pick your exact week comes in handy when you are traveling with a big group and accommodating a lot of schedules which is when we would choose to use our week and not trade).  But heck what do I know?  As I said - I'm very new at this!



Not faulting your logic, actually well done.  I think in a similar manner and after staying at Disney AKL, something outside the block was required.  I am confident that I could cover MF's for New Years at VV@P, but would give it away before I try to rent, if required. FWIW, almost all Orlando's week 51 and 52 are "overpointed"... Those are the weeks kids are off, but you wouldn't catch me or my kids there over the holidays.


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 12, 2013)

Weeks that sit around online forever, and often have to be dumped at a discount, do NOT bring in the chain of exchanges that the high demand, low supply weeks, that are immediately snapped up by ongoing requests do.

It is not so much ''hating'' RCI but realizing that their policies are now detrimental to resorts and are not in the best interests of those owning at many high demand / low supply resorts.  If they want to pander to big developers in overbuilt areas and put their thumb on the scales for such resorts, then it is in the interest of those owning at other types of resorts to do our exchanges elsewhere.  When SFX gets me a confirmed 2BR exchange to London, why in the world would I ever want to screw around with points lite in RCI?  In my relatively short time with SFX, they have actually offered me two weeks in London.  DAE has also gotten me some nice warm season weeks in England, Wales, and Ireland.

RCI claimed it was not changing trading power, only revealing it in Points Lite, but that was quickly exposed as a lie, as people started to compare what their weeks would get under the old system with what TPU points lite brought them.  Some came out ahead.  Some got screwed.  Some remained about the same.  A poll done on another timeshare site revealed that about half lost trading power under the new system while the other half either stayed the same or increased trading power.  One fellow moderator on that that site had her former tiger trader get less TPU points lite than her average traders.  In my case, my summer Outer Banks week seems to be about the same as it was before, but my summer UK weeks, which used to trade for about anything that showed up on sightings, now gets fewer TPU points lite than the Outer Banks week.  Only a fool would give those to RCI instead of SFX, DAE, and UKRE, who I now give them to.  The Allen House owning Tugger who posted that RCI was seriously shortchanging him on TPU points lite, also did the smart thing in giving his Allen House week to DAE for two credits.

Some came out ahead, and I understand that they want to beat the drums for this system, as they want the system to continue to be skewed to what they own.  But they should also understand that for those who got screwed in the change to Points Lite only smart play is to exchange elsewhere.




gnorth16 said:


> "Overpointing" also brings in a series of exchanges and several exchange fees, guest certs and combination fees...
> 
> You really do hate RCI don't you?!?!?!?
> 
> ...


----------



## timeos2 (Jun 12, 2013)

How is any resort "more valuable" to RCI/II when the potential for deposit - and thus for an exchange or rental - is a handful of units at best (smaller, sold out resort with great demand but high owner use or rental vs deposits) vs hundreds from a huge resort that generates high demand? It is $189 times 12 or $189 times 600.  Which made them more money? Which has more value to them in dollars and cents (which is what it's all about!). Why not offer high TPU's or points if it generates hundreds of deposits that easily translate into hundreds of exchanges or rentals? 

It is about income and the high volume resorts will trump the high demand locations in that battle.


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 12, 2013)

gnorth16 said:


> Not faulting your logic, actually well done.  I think in a similar manner and after staying at Disney AKL, something outside the block was required.  I am confident that I could cover MF's for New Years at VV@P, but would give it away before I try to rent, if required. FWIW, almost all Orlando's week 51 and 52 are "overpointed"... Those are the weeks kids are off, but you wouldn't catch me or my kids there over the holidays.



Even so for 51 and 52 at VV@P, another Tugger a couple of years ago found that RCI was giving 50 points lite for a deposit of one of those weeks, but at the very same time had availability to trade into the very same weeks for 10 TPU points lite.  The latter tells you their real worth. The former is RCI putting its thumb on the scales for a favored developer.


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 12, 2013)

The answer is very simple - creating chains of exchanges, which is what happens with weeks that are taken immediately from ongoing searches as opposed to those that sit online forever, and often have to be dumped at a discount because of oversupply.

For most any business, items that sell immediately are more profitable than those that remain in stock for extended periods until they move.

''High demand'' by itself means little.  The key is high demand relative to supply.

If all timesharers were educated, RCI would have sewed up most of the market for Orlando, Massanutten, Williamsburg, Branson, the Canary Islands, the Costa del Sol, and a few other places, and those who owned elsewhere would be trading with different exchange companies.




timeos2 said:


> How is any resort "more valuable" to RCI/II when the potential for deposit - and thus for an exchange or rental - is a handful of units at best (smaller, sold out resort with great demand but high owner use or rental vs deposits) vs hundreds from a huge resort that generates high demand? It is $189 times 12 or $189 times 600.  Which made them more money? Which has more value to them in dollars and cents (which is what it's all about!). Why not offer high TPU's or points if it generates hundreds of deposits that easily translate into hundreds of exchanges or rentals?
> 
> It is about income and the high volume resorts will trump the high demand locations in that battle.


----------



## timeos2 (Jun 12, 2013)

Carolinian said:


> The answer is very simple - creating chains of exchanges, which is what happens with weeks that are taken immediately from ongoing searches as opposed to those that sit online forever, and often have to be dumped at a discount because of oversupply.
> 
> For most any business, items that sell immediately are more profitable than those that remain in stock for extended periods until they move.



The exchangers have created a non-standard business model. Most businesses have to move inventory out ASAP as they have cash tied up in it and need to get it back. The exchangers are PAID to take free inventory - all they need to do is monetize it - pure profit! (Not quite as they do have overhead but so does the standard business)

When RCI/II "discount" they are reducing the income but have no loss as they paid nothing for the inventory in the first place. It is a different world than most businesses would have to deal with so many rules get twisted or simply don't apply.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 12, 2013)

> You need to ponder a bit more and look further to understand the massive demand at Orlando. Yes, there are hundreds of units at VV@P available at any given time. But... and this is a big "but", they are almost all taken, almost all the time, before the current check-in date. All those hundreds of units may not be snapped up 6 months month's in advance, but they are almost always snapped up prior to the travel date, making them much more valuable to RCI than Smuggs.
> 
> Since you don't have an equal number of units at Smuggs, it's hard to compare the demand. Also, more Smuggs units are used by owners, I'd guess. There's probably less that make it to RCI for Trade than VV@P. That doesn't mean there is greater overall demand, only greater usage by owners. Common sense suggests that if you ski, you've got a 6-8 week period where you have to go. But then again, there are far, far fewer skiers than sun worshipers and Mickey worshipers.



On this point - I disagree.  It's pretty easy actually to compare the relative demand. The total number of travelers to Vermont vs. Orlando is irrelevant when you consider demand relative to supply.  The getaway prices tell the best relative demand story out there.  RCI is in the business of making money one way or the other, correct?  No matter how one tries to spin things, RCI would NOT charge $269or $305 for a unit that they think is in "high demand".  Something that is in high demand can be rented for a lot more than $35 a night and RCI definitely isn't just "being nice".  Now it's possible that some places restrict how low RCI can set prices, but the key thing to consider is whether or not the units are renting.   When RCI ever happens to have a rare ski week in their possession for rent they are posted for over $1,000 on Endless vacation rentals and disappear rather quickly.  (I watch the ski inventory very closely).  This is the same point as I made regarding any unit remotely close to an east coast beach in the summer.  Again - you may not think these places are the nicest choices out there (I'll let you know my opinion after I stay @ Presidential villas this summer) - but the point is that for whatever reason when RCI has these units in their possession, RCI obviously knows that they can charge a whole lot more than $269 and easily find interested renters.  Isn't this the text book definition of demand?  I'm not saying I won't end up agreeing with you that there are nicer places to go than Presidential Villas if you are willing to be 15+ minutes from the beach. What I am saying is that unless the overall population of members starts choosing these alternatives instead, the demand is legit. 

Orlando as whole is a high demand location, but the supply of places there still greatly exceeds the demand.  Part of the reason is the issue you bring up about Smuggs only being desirable during a prime 6-8 week period.  This is true of the east coast beach areas as well.  Travelers are competing for weeks in this condensed time period.  Orlando isn't like this as much - demand is relatively constant and spread out throughout the year.  That's why in any one given week, Orlando almost always will have available supply whereas prime ski weeks and beach weeks usually do not.


----------



## tschwa2 (Jun 12, 2013)

Couple things I wanted to point out.  Maybe the 5 for the holiday week was a sale or looking at last minute inventory because right now weeks 51 and 52 are going for 27 and 28 tpus which is less than someone gets to deposit but not the worthless 5 you always seem to think they deserve.

And yes RCI does make deals with developers and perhaps one of those for Vacation Villages and there affiliates are if they have so many deposits (between owners and developers) yearly that RCI will give some kind of boost to all the weeks.  It keeps owners happy with their trade value, it keeps the developer happy with happy owners and lots of fresh meat and it keeps RCI happy because a resort that gives 500+ deposits means a minimum of $99500 in exchange fees alone not to mention membership fees, combine fees, guest cert fees, and rental fees that may not go for much more than the $199 exchange fee for most weeks but may bring in $50-$150 extra for each that gets taken as a rental.

Compare that to the UK resort who may already be encouraging owners to use DAE or something else so RCI might get maybe a dozen off season week and maybe 2-3 prime or shoulder weeks.  Just from the numbers- to RCI the $3000 or so it makes is much less valuable to them.  They still can put the resort in their book and there still will be a few people who deposit anyway because they either don't know about the other exchange companies or want to go somewhere that RCI can get them that the others can't.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 12, 2013)

> How is any resort "more valuable" to RCI/II when the potential for deposit - and thus for an exchange or rental - is a handful of units at best (smaller, sold out resort with great demand but high owner use or rental vs deposits) vs hundreds from a huge resort that generates high demand? It is $189 times 12 or $189 times 600. Which made them more money? Which has more value to them in dollars and cents (which is what it's all about!). Why not offer high TPU's or points if it generates hundreds of deposits that easily translate into hundreds of exchanges or rentals?



I don't follow this...  for each deposit, RCI gets one unit, right?  Why wouldn't they offer high TPUs for the truly valuable high demand weeks?  RCI would get the same deposit inventory from VV&P (and Silver Lake and dozens of other places in Orlando) even if their trading power was lower relative to some of these high demand places.  Christmas week only, may be a different story (I'm not sure as I haven't watched - you couldn't pay me to sit in the Disney lines then...)  The rest of the time, owners would pretty much have no choice but to deposit, no?  The alternative is to use their week, but again, so long as they can reserve the same week for peanuts as an RCI getaway, this would not be a very cost effective decision.


----------



## vckempson (Jun 12, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> Let me explain the difference then...
> 
> These resorts may not be particularly nice, but all of them (including Presidential Villas) earns the right to be a strong trader in a system that is truly based on supply and demand....
> 
> .



I agree with your logic but some of the the facts don't back that up.  Pres Villas gets disproportionately higher TPU's on deposit than many other TS's that are beach front.  Take Atalaya Towers in Garden City.  For a beachfront 3 bdrm in July, you get 48 TPU's on deposit.  That's less than you get for the 2 bdrm side of Pres Villas.  Most any beachfront in July will get you in 40+ TPU's vs 50+ for Pres Villas.   There's no comparison as to which is more preferable, and which would be higher demand. (at least in my mind).  Pres Villas is definitely overpointed relative to their peers.

Now for VV@P.  This seems to be the poster child for overpointing.  The interesting thing is that they don't get any more points than comparable TS's in the Orlando area.  You're talking 25 - 30 TPU's at peak, peak season per deposit.  That's pretty much the same as everywhere else in Orlando.  I just don't see VV@P as being this massive overpointing machine that they are known for.

Don't get me wrong.  I own at Pres Villas and VV@P.  I hope they both keep chugging along.  But it's Pres Villas that I think is more worrisome.  For that matter, it's Pres Villas that's already had significant reductions in the last year, by almost 20% less.  I think in the next few years it will come down further.   

Also, I've actually stayed at VV@P and would do so again if necessary.  Pres Villas is a no go.  I'd rather not go than to stay miles away from the beach.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 12, 2013)

> I agree with your logic but some of the the facts don't back that up. Pres Villas gets disproportionately higher TPU's on deposit than many other TS's that are beach front. Take Atalaya Towers in Garden City. For a beachfront 3 bdrm in July, you get 48 TPU's on deposit. That's less than you get for the 2 bdrm side of Pres Villas. Most any beachfront in July will get you in 40+ TPU's vs 50+ for Pres Villas. There's no comparison as to which is more preferable, and which would be higher demand. (at least in my mind). Pres Villas is definitely overpointed relative to their peers.



Totally see your point (as I said, I'm new to RCI so I actually had no idea what the point requirements were for other SC beach locations.  I figured they were all similar - they should be).  I selected Pres Villas because it is the only 3BR lock out option in the area.  Didn't consider other places.  But I completely agree beach front  obviously should also boost Atalaya relative to non-beach front locations.  And 3BRs in the same area should typically be higher than the 2BRs which should be higher than the 1BRs and so on.  

However, I think this indicates that Atalaya Towers (like Smuggs) is sigificantly undervalued via the TPU system and not that Presidential Villas doesn't deserve high trading power at this time of year.  The Atalaya units will be taken before the Pres Villas units, but the units at both resorts in July are grabbed by members very quickly relative to the total pool of available units and the units (if any) available for rent (not cheap) also disappear.  

On the other hand, the demand for exchange into a 1R at VV&P and many other Orlando resorts cannot possibly be very high during the summer if RCI is renting those same weeks for $70 more than the exchange fees.  How much incentive could there be for anyone to waste their TPUs for a savings of only $70.  But many of those weeks get the same 30ish TPUs as units that are pretty much guaranteed to generate the exchange fee once deposited.


----------



## MichaelColey (Jun 12, 2013)

Carolinian said:


> Some came out ahead, and I understand that they want to beat the drums for this system, as they want the system to continue to be skewed to what they own.  But they should also understand that for those who got screwed in the change to Points Lite only smart play is to exchange elsewhere.


No, the point is that since we can SEE what is happening now, EVERYONE has the opportunity to come out ahead.  If you think something is overpointed, you can buy/own/deposit it.  If you think something is underpointed, you can exchange for it.

Agility is the "new" standard.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 12, 2013)

> Now for VV@P. This seems to be the poster child for overpointing. The interesting thing is that they don't get any more points than comparable TS's in the Orlando area. You're talking 25 - 30 TPU's at peak, peak season per deposit. That's pretty much the same as everywhere else in Orlando. I just don't see VV@P as being this massive overpointing machine that they are known for.



I actually didn't mean to single them out.  I'd put the other non-DVC (and maybe Hilton) places in the same category.  I know from a friend who owns that II does not give great value (outside the Marriott or Starwoods preferences) for 1BR deposits in Orlando.  I think it's Orlando in general (absent DVC, and maybe Bonnet Creek or Hilton?), not VV&P that is suspect to a severe repointing in RCI one day.  The risk is that from a demand perspective, there is a steep lower limit on the drop it would take on TPU offerings (like with those South Africa units) to make it more attractive for the bulk of owners to use or rent their deeded weeks rather than depositing (renting in Orlando outside of possibly Xmas is not possible based on the selection of dirt cheap rentals).  With SA, the problem was that coordinating a rental was not realistic for an owner nor was travel for use across the world.  So those owners either sold or were stuck depositing anyway.  So far, RCI has given good value to Orlando properties, but we all know that could easily change at any point.



> But it's Pres Villas that I think is more worrisome. For that matter, it's Pres Villas that's already had significant reductions in the last year, by almost 20% less. I think in the next few years it will come down further. Also, I've actually stayed at VV@P and would do so again if necessary. Pres Villas is a no go. I'd rather not go than to stay miles away from the beach.



A lot of east coast beach properties took a hit in TPUs - not just Pres Villas. Sure the trend could continue, and I knew this when I purchased.  However, I decided to stick with my instinct which said to buy where there is high demand relative to supply.  In the end, there is only so low that the TPUs at these places can go before owners will decide to rent instead of depositing.  You may not want to stay at a place with 2 mile shuttle to a beach, but there are plenty of large families that would gladly take a 3BR July week at a property with very nice grounds, lazy river, beach town, etc.  You only need to ask $700ish to break even on maintenance and nowhere will you find an east coast rental this size within walking distance of the beach for close to this.  Renting for the max on TUG last minute is a great back up option for a place like this if all else fails.  Or if not, I suppose I could bite the bullet and convert my deeded week 27 to the 104K points it gets on the points side....  That's why I say it's low risk - lots of options.  Plus I'm not blocked from trading into DVC.   








Many properties in Orlando are gorgeous - the issue is that there are too many of them for renting to ever be a viable alternative.


----------



## vckempson (Jun 12, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> On the other hand, the demand for exchange into a 1R at VV&P and many other Orlando resorts cannot possibly be very high during the summer if RCI is renting those same weeks for $70 more than the exchange fees.  How much incentive could there be for anyone to waste their TPUs for a savings of only $70.  But many of those weeks get the same 30ish TPUs as units that are pretty much guaranteed to generate the exchange fee once deposited.



Three things.  

1. I don't connect massive supply with lack of demand.  Rather, it's just a mis-match in the timing of the supply/demand.  Most all those 1 bdrm TS's at VV@P are booked one way or another by the usage time.  That suggests a huge demand when you see the available number well in advance.  Think of it like a NY or DC hotel.  A year ahead of time the most of the entire hotel is likely available.  Two weeks ahead of time it's all booked up.  VV@P is like that.

2. If RCI can rent them for $70 more than the exchange rate, then they are making $70 more than if they were all taken in exchange.  The volume of trades and rental units adds far more money to their coffers than in places where more owners use their units, even if the location has higher demand.

3. Orlando is not South Africa.  South Africa is not in high demand of American travelers, but Orlando is, and likely will be for the remainder of my life.  In addition, getting 20 - 30 TPU's on deposit just doesn't seem to be grossly overpointed relative to the revenue and profit to RCI that Orlando represents.

BTW, I'm not suggesting you made any wrong decision in buying Pres Villas. or that VV@P is inherently any better.


----------



## lindner (Jun 12, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> On the other hand, the demand for exchange into a 1R at VV&P and many other Orlando resorts cannot possibly be very high during the summer if RCI is renting those same weeks for $70 more than the exchange fees.  How much incentive could there be for anyone to waste their TPUs for a savings of only $70.  But many of those weeks get the same 30ish TPUs as units that are pretty much guaranteed to generate the exchange fee once deposited.



Several people have made this point that VV@P has cheap getaways and low TPUs to exchange into if you book last minute (often less than 10 TPU).  But you are missing the main point.  Most people do not book last minute and thus would not take advantage of the getaways or low TPU exchanges.  Most people book 6 months to a year in advance.  Doing so costs more like 20 or 30 TPU or more for exchange or $700 or so for an extra vacation.  Don't take my word for it; go to RCI and see for yourself!  Even those of us who know that last minute exchange are cheap will usually not take a chance.  If you have to travel during school vacations, would you wait until the last minute to book it and take a chance there is nothing available?

Thus, from RCI's perspective, they reap an average of close to 20 TPU or $600 for VV@P.  True, if you simply wait until a month before checkin you can get 5 TPU or a $229 getaway.  There are usually lots of units available any week of the year at these prices.  But most people don't do that and they pay 20 or more TPU or $700 extra vacation, and thus RCI is coming out just fine.   If they get 20 TPU average for a one bedroom; they can afford to give 40 TPU for a two bedroom lockout.

Also, several have noted the cheap cost of getaways and asked why would you use TPUs instead of paying for the getaway.  Again, you are not making a fair comparison.  If you book last minute (all getaways are last minute), then the TPU cost for exchange is very low (like 5 TPU).  If you are only using 5 TPU, then the total exchange cost is comparable to a getaway cost.  The high TPU cost is only if you book far out, in which case a true comparison would be extra vacations, which are much costlier.


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 12, 2013)

MichaelColey said:


> No, the point is that since we can SEE what is happening now, EVERYONE has the opportunity to come out ahead.  If you think something is overpointed, you can buy/own/deposit it.  If you think something is underpointed, you can exchange for it.
> 
> Agility is the "new" standard.



Not when you buy where you want to vacation.  Further with RCI known for its changes, what is overpointed today might not be tormorrow, so it is building on quicksand to rely on RCI values.

I would never own at VV@P because 1) it is not where I would want to vacation except a rare ''see the mouse'' trip with young family members, and 2) it has a developer controlled HOA, something I avoid like the plague,


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 13, 2013)

> Several people have made this point that VV@P has cheap getaways and low TPUs to exchange into if you book last minute (often less than 10 TPU). But you are missing the main point. Most people do not book last minute and thus would not take advantage of the getaways or low TPU exchanges. Most people book 6 months to a year in advance. Doing so costs more like 20 or 30 TPU or more for exchange or $700 or so for an extra vacation. Don't take my word for it; go to RCI and see for yourself! Even those of us who know that last minute exchange are cheap will usually not take a chance. If you have to travel during school vacations, would you wait until the last minute to book it and take a chance there is nothing available?



With all due respect this is not true.  Every week is available for a getaway through 2014.  Only some of the summer weeks for NEXT summer are priced at $500 or $600 but that's just because it's a default right now to charge a bit more for summer in the future.  The price will come down and it won't be at the last minute either (will have more than 6 months notice of check in).  There is -0- risk of not being able to confirm a gorgeous unit for pennies in Orlando except maybe week 52 - maybe.   There are so many gorgeous Marriotts on Interval to go along with all the gold RCI choices.  Anyone who doesn't know this will come down hasn't done their homework, AT ALL.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 13, 2013)

> If RCI can rent them for $70 more than the exchange rate, then they are making $70 more than if they were all taken in exchange. The volume of trades and rental units adds far more money to their coffers than in places where more owners use their units, even if the location has higher demand.



Agreed - the point I was making with this is that most exchangers will logically conclude it to be a waste of TPUs to save only $70 from the getaway price.  They have to right?  Will anyone think 20-30 TPUs are only worth $70?  No.

If you make a nice place that's easy to get to cheap enough, the units are going to rent.  This is true almost anywhere.   Do you realize how cheap $269 is?  When you consider the cost to clean the room and the utilities for the week, VV&P is almost better off if that unit goes vacant.     

Either way, Orlando is not seasonal, which makes it a great all year round destination.  However - there is still no disputing that a July studio at Presidential Villas always costs more than any RCI rental at VV&P at any time of the year regardless of how far in advance we are talking.  RCI also runs out of exchange inventory for July weeks at Pres Villas quicker than they do for VV&P in 1BRs at any time of year.  So on a one to one comparison, RCI is guaranteed to generate more direct profit from that July studio in every situation.  To me, that means the July studio as a stand alone unit is more valuable to them.  It's simple math.


----------



## chriskre (Jun 13, 2013)

Carolinian said:


> Not when you buy where you want to vacation.  Further with RCI known for its changes, what is overpointed today might not be tormorrow, so it is building on quicksand to rely on RCI values.
> 
> I would never own at VV@P because 1) it is not where I would want to vacation except a rare ''see the mouse'' trip with young family members, and 2) it has a developer controlled HOA, something I avoid like the plague,



I think a timeshare portfolio should include both.
An all or none mentality just leads to dissatisfaction.
I own weeks and points that rci will never ever see. My fixed beach weeks and dvc points.
then I own a few things that are created almost exclusively for rci like vv @p. 
I also threw a few mini systems into my mix.  And stuff I give to ii and sfx.  
If you are going to play the timeshare game its good to have many options
And leave yourself wiggle room to reallocate if necessary. 
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## timeos2 (Jun 13, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> If you make a nice place that's easy to get to cheap enough, the units are going to rent.  This is true almost anywhere.   Do you realize how cheap $269 is?  When you consider the cost to clean the room and the utilities for the week, VV&P is almost better off if that unit goes vacant.



Remember it is RCI, not the resort, that gets the $269. The resort has received the full annual fee for the time from the owner. They aren't a loser. The renter wins (great place for low $$), RCI wins (trade or rent they make money), the resort wins (fees paid) and, at 30 TPU's, the owner likely feels they are getting value too. In other words everyone wins as this is a location that will almost certainly be utilized. Thus the value you see RCI place on it. And despite the incredible amount of inventory that they can generate.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 13, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> Remember it is RCI, not the resort, that gets the $269. The resort has received the full annual fee for the time from the owner. They aren't a loser. The renter wins (great place for low $$), RCI wins (trade or rent they make money), the resort wins (fees paid) and, at 30 TPU's, the owner likely feels they are getting value too. In other words everyone wins as this is a location that will almost certainly be utilized. Thus the value you see RCI place on it. And despite the incredible amount of inventory that they can generate.



John is exactly right. Especially about the owner (me) I deposit one VV@P week and get back enough TPU to spend 5 - 8 weeks at the same place. Which is exactly what I do.  Im happy, and Im betting RCI is happy with the over $1000 I pay them in exchange fees too.

The more TPU I get, The exchanges I make and the more money RCI makes. It seems that there are no losers when RCI over points a resort


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 14, 2013)

For sure RCI is happy - but wouldn't they be happy with a Smuggs owner paying 5 exchange fees too for their deposits?  I don't see why it matters who they are getting the exchanges from.  Still don't see why not give an owner of a valuable week more TPU...

You guys are probably right - RCI's arrangement with those $269 rentals is surely favorable or they wouldn't do it.  However - if there was truly overwhelming demand for those units, wouldn't RCI change double that?  Heck it would still be less than $100 a night for a 1BR suite!  Does RCI ever charge more than the maintenance fee for a 2BR rental at VV@P?  That was probably my biggest criteria in picking a place to buy.  The idea of buying something that routinely rents on RCI for less than my maintenance really bothered me.  That's how I decided on Pres Villas in the first place.  I wanted a large unit that locks out with this characteristic that wouldn't cost me thousands and thousands to buy resale.  I didn't find too many options fitting this picture.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 14, 2013)

> Also, I've actually stayed at VV@P and would do so again if necessary. Pres Villas is a no go. I'd rather not go than to stay miles away from the beach.



It's funny how everyone's perspective is different.  When we go to Disney, we will stay DVC even if we have to rent from an owner.  If we go to Las Vegas, we would choose a nice central strip hotel before the Grandview (we're not looking for a kitchen if we go there and we probably wouldn't stay a full week anyway).  

As for a beach trip - my parents stayed recently in Falmouth on an II exchange in one of those converted 1BR motel units.  It was beach front, but they concluded that the Falmouth just beaches don't compare to our local NY beaches (Queens, Brooklyn, and Nassau County Long Island) - my parents belong to a local beach club 15 minutes from their house and thought their local beach is much nicer...  Bottom line - if they are traveling for a nice beach it will be to the Caribbean... But they and their adult children each live in apartments, so the idea of driving to a large beach community condo for a week with a nice pool area and periodic trips to the beach / boardwalk is appealing once in a while.  An every year thing - for sure not, but for once in a while this is a possibility.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 14, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> For sure RCI is happy - but wouldn't they be happy with a Smuggs owner paying 5 exchange fees too for their deposits?  I don't see why it matters who they are getting the exchanges from.  Still don't see why not give an owner of a valuable week more TPU...
> 
> You guys are probably right - RCI's arrangement with those $269 rentals is surely favorable or they wouldn't do it.  However - if there was truly overwhelming demand for those units, wouldn't RCI change double that?  Heck it would still be less than $100 a night for a 1BR suite!  Does RCI ever charge more than the maintenance fee for a 2BR rental at VV@P?  That was probably my biggest criteria in picking a place to buy.  The idea of buying something that routinely rents on RCI for less than my maintenance really bothered me.  That's how I decided on Pres Villas in the first place.  I wanted a large unit that locks out with this characteristic that wouldn't cost me thousands and thousands to buy resale.  I didn't find too many options fitting this picture.



The maintenance fee that I pay at VV@P makes no difference to what RCI offers on the deposit side, or what they charge on the exchange or rental side. Maintenance fees are paid by the owners and are of no consequence to exchangers or RCI

Not only are the maintenance fees of no concern to RCI, I dont think RCI cares what the demand is when they set the tpu for a deposit. They simply come up with a number that will get them deposits. and their number, no matter the resort or its location (with few exceptions no doubt) is about 20 for a one bedroom

I just looked at three other Orlando resorts with the RCI deposit calculator and RCI gives 19, 20, and 21 TPU respectively,  for the same week. I then looked at 5 other one bedrooms that I own at places other than Orlando, all shoulder season weeks, like my VV@P. And RCI gives them 21 to 26 TPU.  Based on this admittedly, small data set,  I conclude that 20 tpu is about right for a one bedroom shoulder season week.  Its not overpointing. In fact its less than I can get for several other of my one bedrooms.

Supply and demand come in (I think) when RCI sets the number of TPU for an exchange.  The only reason 20 for a deposit, looks like over pointing is because VV@P is no ones first choice in Orlando,  except perhaps mine. and  the place is so big it wont fill up unless RCI offers it for a bargain price (currently about 8 tpu). But it does almost always fill up.

So...I think we have been looking at this backwards. RCI is not overpointing at VV@P when they give me 20 TPU for my one bedroom unit.   Its the underpointing on the exchange side and the $269 last calls that stand out, and upset folks like bonk2boy because maintenance fees are so much higher than rentals


----------



## lindner (Jun 14, 2013)

Ron makes an excellent argument on the deposit side to show that 20 TPU is quite reasonable and typical.  However, an argument could also be made on the exchange side that it is not significantly underpointing and that in fact 20 TPU is typical for what an exchanger will pay.  Go to RCI.com right now and check available units.  648 came up over the next two years.  The TPU cost to exchange into VV@P varies from 6 to 37.  The ones in single digits are those last minute ones for this summer as well as the slow season for Orlando (fall).  If you look at anything around Christmas, it'll cost you as much as 37 TPU for a two bed and 28 for a one bed.  Next spring a one bed will cost around 20 TPU; a bit less in Jan or May.  Next summer it is 20 to 25 TPU.  It goes down again for fall 2014 (slow season).

Facts are stubborn things.  The fact is that anyone who is planning to go during a prime time, like this Christmas or next spring/summer will pay at least 20 TPU, which is close to the deposit amount Ron quotes.  Only those folks who travel last minute or who travel in fall will pay significantly less than 20 TPU.  TUGGERs know this, but most timeshare owners pay the higher TPU cost to guarantee a unit during a prime time well in advance.

Bottom line; as Ron points out, 20 TPU is typical for what one gets for depositing and as the facts show above, 20 TPU is typical for what one pays for exchanging.



ronparise said:


> Its the underpointing on the exchange side and the $269 last calls that stand out, and upset folks like bonk2boy because maintenance fees are so much higher than rentals


----------



## vckempson (Jun 14, 2013)

There's another obvious, inconvenient truth for those who suggest over-pointing at VV@P.  The high TPU count that's often quoted, by me included, are for both parts of the lock-off being deposited separately.  I get 65 TPU's for my July 4th week.  But that's actually 33 for one side and 32 for the other.  Each are stand alone 1 bdrm units.  From the depositor's perspective, that's 65 for one TS.  For RCI or incoming exchangers, though, it's two separate deposits, just as if you owned two separate timeshares.

This brings into light the minimal difference in TPU's between a 1 bdrm and a 2 bdrm.  But that's true across the board within the entire RCI weeks system.  The minimal difference applies to both deposits and exchanges.   Cleary, you can exploit that on each side of the transaction.  Use these VV@P 2 bdrm lock-out for two 1 bdrm deposits and get almost twice as many TPU's.  Then Use them for 2 bdrm exchanges paying little more than for a 1 bdrm.  That gives you two or maybe three 2 bdrm exchanges out of only one 2 bdrm ownership.

It's this, and not the supposed overpointing, that make these so very efficient for exchanging to other places.


----------



## MichaelColey (Jun 14, 2013)

ronparise said:


> Not only are the maintenance fees of no concern to RCI, I dont think RCI cares what the demand is when they set the tpu for a deposit.


I disagree.  I think they TRY to accurately gauge supply and demand when setting the TPU values (both for deposits and exchanges), but I'm sure it's difficult to accurately predict.

From my point of view, the TPU values for deposits are set far in advance and are much more fixed.  I suspect that they work primarily off of past history for the region, unit size, and quality score for a particular week.  And it's not perfect.

The TPU values for exchanges are much more fluid.  I think they generally start out the very similar to the TPU values for deposits, but if it looks like a deposit is going to go unredeemed, they'll drop the TPU.  As it gets even closer, they'll drop it even more.

That's not necessarily a bad thing for RCI.  They'll get more TPUs from those willing to pay more, then they'll settle for less from last minute travelers who take what's left.  It's kind of like a bakery selling day old items.  It doesn't mean that the items should have been priced 75% lower.  It just means they misjudged the demand and they're getting what they can out of a perishable product while it's still worth something.


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 16, 2013)

Wrong!  If they did that the TPU points lite values would be exactly the same at the same point in time for deposits or exchanges.  They very freuquently are not, and that is Exhibit A that the whole system is thoroughly corrupt.





MichaelColey said:


> I disagree.  I think they TRY to accurately gauge supply and demand when setting the TPU values (both for deposits and exchanges), but I'm sure it's difficult to accurately predict.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 16, 2013)

> Ron makes an excellent argument on the deposit side to show that 20 TPU is quite reasonable and typical. However, an argument could also be made on the exchange side that it is not significantly underpointing and that in fact 20 TPU is typical for what an exchanger will pay.



Let's get a couple things straight.  I was in no way trying to single VV&P out compared to other Orlando resorts or other places for that matter.  The point I was making applies to every single resort out there that RCI already has tons of extra vacation rental inventory posted for 9+ months out.  

I pulled week 21 of 2014 up on the TPU calculator for VV&P as an example but IT DOESN'T MATTER the resort - the point I'm making applies universally to all the resorts that are renting for practically the exchange fee.  This deposit gets 24 TPUs.  I have no idea what RCI is asking to confirm this week on the exchange side, but they are renting it for $323.  You pay $199 to confirm an exchange, and my point is that I don't think only $124 savings is worth +20 TPUs to most exchangers regardless of the unit.  I also don't think RCI would charge $323 for a unit at 11+ months out if they thought that their members were willing to pay more for it.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 17, 2013)

Put another way - all the comments I made are based on a system of pure supply and demand with the definitions of both being the TPU currency itself.  How many TPUs is an owner willing to accept for a deposit compared to how many TPUs is an exchanger willing to give up to exchange into a unit.  In a currency based unit system, that's what supply and demand really is.

Underpointed = Weeks that exchangers would regularly be willing to give up more TPUs than the depositor is granted.  Atalaya, Smuggs, etc.  

Overpointed = Weeks that a depositor is granted more TPUs than an exchanger typically is willing to give up for a unit. Weeks that RCI routinely rents away for a few dollars more than the exchange fee have to fall into this category.  Anyone who disagrees would basically be saying that 24 TPUs is typically only worth $123 of savings to them.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 17, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> Put another way - all the comments I made are based on a system of pure supply and demand with the definitions of both being the TPU currency itself.  How many TPUs is an owner willing to accept for a deposit compared to how many TPUs is an exchanger willing to give up to exchange into a unit.  In a currency based unit system, that's what supply and demand really is.
> 
> Underpointed = Weeks that exchangers would regularly be willing to give up more TPUs than the depositor is granted.  Atalaya, Smuggs, etc.
> 
> Overpointed = Weeks that a depositor is granted more TPUs than an exchanger typically is willing to give up for a unit. Weeks that RCI routinely rents away for a few dollars more than the exchange fee have to fall into this category.  Anyone who disagrees would basically be saying that 24 TPUs is typically only worth $123 of savings to them.



When you talk about supply and demand, I think you are wrong to suggest that there is (or should be) any relationship between deposits and exchanges. They are two different and two separate transactions done at two different times and they are not related. That I am given 20 tpu for a deposit, today, has nothing to do with what anyone might be willing to pay to stay there in the future...

And I just dont understand what you are getting at when you say 24 tpu=$123 of savings

using VV@P again as an example:  on the deposit side, I have something RCI wants (another deposit) I am the supply side of the deal and RCI the demand. If RCI needs deposits the number will be higher than if they dont

and when I am looking for a vacation,   RCI is the supply side. If they have lots of VV@P in their inventory  the price (in tpu) will be less


So the price I pay, when making an exchange, has nothing to do with the price Im paid when making a deposit


----------



## chriskre (Jun 17, 2013)

ronparise said:


> When you talk about supply and demand, I think you are wrong to suggest that there is (or should be) any relationship between deposits and exchanges. They are two different and two separate transactions done at two different times and they are not related. That I am given 20 tpu for a deposit, today, has nothing to do with what anyone might be willing to pay to stay there in the future...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with Ron.  
I don't care what RCI does with my deposit.  
I wouldn't deposit though if they didn't give me enough TPU's to make it worth my while so obviously they know where most of their "inventory" comes from and reward those who play their game.  Since I own alot of low MF/TPU weeks they get the bulk of my deposits.  II gets the rest. 

As long as I get to go where I want to go then why am I going to be looking back to see what they did with my deposit?  Yeah, I know it's not fair, yada yada yada, but it is, what it is.  

I'm not Ralph Nader so I'm not looking for how fair the system is to everyone, only that it's fair to me.  Call me selfish, but if anyone is not being rewarded then they should go elsewhere.  No one is forcing anyone to use RCI.  The independents are always an option.  When I owned weeks that didn't work for me I gave them away.  I think that's just part of the game.  Reallocate the portfolio every now and then if it's not working for you.


----------



## DanM (Jun 17, 2013)

I have two holiday ski weeks at the same resort. One is a studio RCI gives 21 TPU for and the other is a one bedroom for which RCI gives 14. II offers an AC for the one bedroom, but not for the studio. So, not surprisingly, I take the 21 TPU from RCI on one unit and the AC from II on the other.
Putting aside the fact that the two companies obviously have different valuation models, I can see that the TPUs for a deposit might be different at the same point in time than for an exchange. The exchange value could be based on a projection  of what demand will be over time, while the deposit value could be based on the the number of units currently offered by members for deposit....not to say that that is a good way for RCI to figure, just that it's not completely irrational.
The bottom line is that I used to deposit both units with RCI and now I don't. The less advantageous to me, the less likely I am to deal with them. One reason I sold another timeshare is that I could no longer work the system to my advantage on that unit the way we experienced Tuggers did before TPUs.
The irony is that as the ability to game the system is reduced, the whole advantage of exchanging for many of us is eliminated. The only folks left will be people who stay at their home resorts and the kind of people who buy from developers.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 17, 2013)

> And I just dont understand what you are getting at when you say 24 tpu=$123 of savings



Extra Vacation Price for week 21 2014 = $323 (1BR VV&P)
Week 21 2014 Exchange = $199 + 24 TPUs (1BR VV&P)

That's were it came from - sorry, I was off by a dollar.  Would be 323 - 199 =$124 savings.  Don't you always check the getaway prices before you confirm an exchange for the same date?  I've always done this for II and assumed everyone did - getaways can be so cheap so why wouldn't you - for II the Platinum escapes are often less than the exchange fee...  Anyway - I would never waste an exchange on something that only costs me $124 more than the exchange, but then, I guess that's just me.  People mention the advance purchase benefits of exchange, but the example I gave the extra vacation was available at +12 months out (why would anyone need more notice than this for Orlando - can you even book a flight at more advance than this?)


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 17, 2013)

> I'm not Ralph Nader so I'm not looking for how fair the system is to everyone, only that it's fair to me. Call me selfish, but if anyone is not being rewarded then they should go elsewhere.



Actually, I don't care either as long as the situation Dan just described doesn't become the norm one day (i.e. more and more owners at places with limited demand during peak season choose to rent or use their time).  And I agree with you - people always have the option to go elsewhere if they aren't happy with trading power.  That's why buying a place that only makes sense to own based on current trading power was more risk than I was willing to take on. So long as II and RCI (and their affiliate sites) continue to offer a wide selection of Orlando rentals for half the maintenance, it does not make economic sense to own a unit at these places for direct use or rental purposes. This would make tradig the only LT option and that arrangement was too risky for me personally.  However, I have no problem with those willing to take on that risk benefiting from it.  Heck - I knew what the TP was for a unit at VV&P before I chose SC and I knew I could pick up unit there for next to nothing.  It's no different than the economics of the stock market.  Risky portfolios have higher LT yields, but they also blow up and result in disasters more often.


----------



## chriskre (Jun 17, 2013)

DanM said:


> The irony is that as the ability to game the system is reduced, the whole advantage of exchanging for many of us is eliminated. The only folks left will be people who stay at their home resorts and the kind of people who buy from developers.



I think this is why mini systems are gaining in popularity.
Although I get great value out of exchanging, those mini systems make it way easier to get what you want when you want it.  Not that I'm dropping out of the exchange game anytime soon.


----------



## chriskre (Jun 17, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> Actually, I don't care either as long as the situation Dan just described doesn't become the norm one day (i.e. more and more owners at places with limited demand during peak season choose to rent or use their time).  And I agree with you - people always have the option to go elsewhere if they aren't happy with trading power.  That's why buying a place that only makes sense to own based on current trading power was more risk than I was willing to take on. So long as II and RCI (and their affiliate sites) continue to offer a wide selection of Orlando rentals for half the maintenance, it does not make economic sense to own a unit at these places for direct use or rental purposes. This would make tradig the only LT option and that arrangement was too risky for me personally.  However, I have no problem with those willing to take on that risk benefiting from it.  Heck - I knew what the TP was for a unit at VV&P before I chose SC and I knew I could pick up unit there for next to nothing.  It's no different than the economics of the stock market.  Risky portfolios have higher LT yields, but they also blow up and result in disasters more often.



Well I actually own three timeshares in Orlando so obviously I don't completely agree with your assessment.  Yes going to TPU's is risky but owning in a mini system like HGVC or DVC can make alot of sense in Orlando.   I purchased both of these to use internally in the respective clubs and they work exactly as I expected and beyond my expectations in many ways.  Example I rent my DVC points and exchange in instead and I never use my HGVC points in Orlando but only use open season.  

Believe it or not I also own at VV@P but I own in RCI points.  IMO that's a better way to own VV@P and I have gotten great value out of this ownership.  Yeah I am blocked from going to DVC but those points are a great deal for many other places thru RCI points.  And the inventory doesn't get snapped up so quickly like it does in TPU's.  Is it risky?  Maybe so but I'm going on 6 years owning at VV@P and so far so good.  When it ends, it ends and I'll split and deposit it elsewhere.  SFX takes these weeks so they can have it.  Platinum interchange also takes these VV@P weeks.  I'm sure I can find some value out of it.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 17, 2013)

> Believe it or not I also own at VV@P but I own in RCI points. IMO that's a better way to own VV@P and I have gotten great value out of this ownership. Yeah I am blocked from going to DVC but those points are a great deal for many other places thru RCI points.



Agreed - in general, the points seem safer to me too because points are points.  I'm new to this RCI thing though so I figured I would start simple.


----------



## lindner (Jun 17, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> Extra Vacation Price for week 21 2014 = $323 (1BR VV&P)
> Week 21 2014 Exchange = $199 + 24 TPUs (1BR VV&P)
> 
> That's were it came from - sorry, I was off by a dollar.  Would be 323 - 199 =$124 savings.  Don't you always check the getaway prices before you confirm an exchange for the same date?  I've always done this for II and assumed everyone did - getaways can be so cheap so why wouldn't you - for II the Platinum escapes are often less than the exchange fee...  Anyway - I would never waste an exchange on something that only costs me $124 more than the exchange, but then, I guess that's just me.



As Ronald Reagan would say "there you go again".  One needs to be cautious about cherry picking data to suit ones argument.  I agree with you that one should consider the alternative of extra vacations, particularly if you desire a less desirable week (as you point out above, although your calculations are off as an exchange is 15 TPU for that case).  However, a one bedroom in May is definitely not a peak request for Orlando.  School vacation dates and two bedrooms are the most popular.  Take for example a two bedroom in July, where an exchange is 30 TPU and an extra vacation is $656.  Unless you are paying more than $15 per TPU, the exchange is the better option in that scenario.

Bottom line: extra vacations are often better than exchange when low TPUs are required (due to the $199 exchange fee), but not for the times, unit sizes and locations most people wish to use.


----------



## vckempson (Jun 17, 2013)

We all have different criteria on what's best for us.  It's hard to fault Bonkboy for doing a risk assessment and the concern for an exit plan.  All consumers of TS's should do as much.

As to RCI, we don't really know what all goes into the deposit formula.  On the deposit side, they have a fuzzy grey input called "utilization" which is in addition to supply and demand.   In any event,  I agree with Ron that each side of the equation is decoupled and has it's own set of criteria for setting the TPU's.  I also wouldn't read much into the cost of extra vacations, as healthy profit can be derived from either high margins or high volume.  

VV@P & Pres Villas seems to produce profit for RCI in two totally different ways.  The two different ways appear to be base available units for deposit.

1. VV@P with high volume has low exchange TPU's and low cost for extra vacations.  
2.  Pres Villas has low volume with high TPU cost and high cost for extra vacations.

To talk about overpointing and underpointing almost seems irrelevant to whether they accomplish your intended goals. So for Bonkboy,  if the important factor is being able to rent the unit out for more than the MF if the TPU's go to crap, then he made a great decision.  That's the factor that was relevant to him, and he chose wisely.  I never thought things out that thoroughly.   I just took over ownership of great weeks when they came along;  two July 4th weeks and a Christmas week.  I just wanted cheap TPU's to exchange with and figured the great dates alone would help with disposing of them if need be.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 17, 2013)

> As Ronald Reagan would say "there you go again". One needs to be cautious about cherry picking data to suit ones argument. I agree with you that one should consider the alternative of extra vacations, particularly if you desire a less desirable week (as you point out above, although your calculations are off as an exchange is 15 TPU for that case).



So RCI is right now giving a depositor 24 TPUs for a unit that it's only asking exchangers 15 TPUs for - at 11 months out?  Doesn't this just prove the point that RCI knows full well that very few people at any point will be willing to give up 24 TPUs for that particular week?       

The higher $653 July rental prices in Orlando are similar to the mid-April through May, and September 2014 pricing at Presidential Villas ($864 for a SC studio in shoulder season???)  RCI, I suppose, will keep the price high initially if there is any chance whatsoever of collecting.  The pricing on all of those weeks will likely come down later on though (is not the summer 2013 pricing in Orlando and mid September 2013 pricing in SC not indicative of this?)


----------



## vckempson (Jun 17, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> So RCI is right now giving a depositor 24 TPUs for a unit that it's only asking exchangers 15 TPUs for - at 11 months out?  Doesn't this just prove the point that RCI knows full well that very few people at any point will be willing to give up 24 TPUs for that particular week?
> 
> The higher $653 July rental prices in Orlando are similar to the mid-April through May, and September 2014 pricing at Presidential Villas ($864 for a SC studio in shoulder season???)  RCI, I suppose, will keep the price high initially if there is any chance whatsoever of collecting.  The pricing on all of those weeks will likely come down later on though (is not the summer 2013 pricing in Orlando and mid September 2013 pricing in SC not indicative of this?)



Appears to be a sound business plan to me.  If you've got huge available inventory, would you rather get $199 each for an exchange or $350 for a rental?  The rental almost double their profit.    That's just how they choose to maximize their profit in Orlando and shouldn't be seen as something more.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 17, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> Extra Vacation Price for week 21 2014 = $323 (1BR VV&P)
> Week 21 2014 Exchange = $199 + 24 TPUs (1BR VV&P)
> 
> That's were it came from - sorry, I was off by a dollar.  Would be 323 - 199 =$124 savings.  Don't you always check the getaway prices before you confirm an exchange for the same date?  I've always done this for II and assumed everyone did - getaways can be so cheap so why wouldn't you - for II the Platinum escapes are often less than the exchange fee...  Anyway - I would never waste an exchange on something that only costs me $124 more than the exchange, but then, I guess that's just me.  People mention the advance purchase benefits of exchange, but the example I gave the extra vacation was available at +12 months out (why would anyone need more notice than this for Orlando - can you even book a flight at more advance than this?)



My 24 tpu came from a deposit of a week that cost me $750 mf. so I see the calculation differently

Extra Vacation Price for week 21 2014 = $323 (1BR VV&P)
Week 21 2014 Exchange = $199 + $750 (1BR VV&P)
So the Extra Vacation would save me $427 not $124

The problem is however that my 24 tpu is a wasting asset. The day will come when it expires worthless if not used...So I can't always be taking the $323 extra vacation. I have to spend that 24 tpu sooner or later. or watch it just waste away.


----------



## timeos2 (Jun 17, 2013)

vckempson said:


> As to RCI, we don't really know what all goes into the deposit formula.  On the deposit side, they have a fuzzy grey input called "utilization" which is in addition to supply and demand.   In any event,  I agree with Ron that each side of the equation is decoupled and has it's own set of criteria for setting the TPU's.  I also wouldn't read much into the cost of extra vacations, as healthy profit can be derived from either high margins or high volume.



From what I have seen and heard over 20+ years dealing with RCI as both a member and on the resort side it seems there is a "utilization" factor that plays an important role. In many ways it's a take on demand but yet has it's own additional values.  

From the RCI standpoint it seems that utilization is the likelihood that any given deposit from resort X  will in fact get claimed. It use dot be claimed for trade but now it also seems to have been expanded to claimed as rental.  They somehow have factored in the idea that there is a ceiling on how many deposits will easily get claimed vs becoming saturated (thus dropping the average value).  If your resort has a high utilization factor it means that even with many more deposits the redeem rate will remain high (as in 90%+). If that is the case then virtually every deposit gets a relatively high amount of TPU's in weeks - Points in the RCI Point system. 

If there is a level where the redemption level starts to fall off quickly - say if they consistently get 100 deposits but only 50-60 are reliably claimed, the rest have to be discounted to get used - then the deposit TPU's may be lowered, usually in a seasonal type pattern.  Same for points.  Where the other differences come in are the quality ratings. They know a higher ranked resort is more likely to have a better, full cost redemption rate than a non or lowered ranked one will.  While some want to blow off quality as a factor we all know that many guests will pick a high ranked resort over a lower one - and many won't consider an unranked resort at all.   RCI isn't blind to those facts.  

Location plays a huge part too. In seasonal areas, often with limited units overall, a beach location in season is unbeatable while ranking might take a back seat.  But in an area like Orlando where the whole area IS the location then quality ranking can play a huge roll in both demand and overall utilization.  With the massive amount of total inventory they (RCI) can be freer with point/TPU values for a ranked resort vs non-ranked as the location of all are basically equal if they are in a 30 mile radius.  You don't have to be within the gates of DVC to be a viable and attractive Disney area resort. But it's tough to be a real beach resort if you're a mile down the road from the water. Even being Gold Crown may not make up for that missing sand & waterfront view. 

There are a ton of factors and we may not always see them all. RCI does, they consistently make money, so it appears the criteria works for them. We just need to exploit it as best we can if we agree on how they did it or not.


----------



## lindner (Jun 17, 2013)

ronparise said:


> My 24 tpu came from a deposit of a week that cost me $750 mf. so I see the calculation differently
> 
> Extra Vacation Price for week 21 2014 = $323 (1BR VV&P)
> Week 21 2014 Exchange = $199 + $750 (1BR VV&P)
> ...



Another way to look at it is that you have prepaid most of your vacation exchange.  The maintenance fees are paid, so all it costs you is $199, which is always less than an extra vacation.  If you sell or give away your timeshare, then you have the alternate problem, which is that you can't do an exchange in those cases where an extra vacation is expensive.


----------



## lindner (Jun 17, 2013)

Good points John.  Would it not also seem reasonable that competition comes into play?  If they offer too few TPU for deposits or charge too many to exchange, then folks will just drift to other exchange companies (although admittedly most owners do not belong to two exchange companies or can deposit in more than one exchange company).



timeos2 said:


> From what I have seen and heard over 20+ years dealing with RCI as both a member and on the resort side it seems there is a "utilization" factor that plays an important role. In many ways it's a take on demand but yet has it's own additional values.
> 
> From the RCI standpoint it seems that utilization is the likelihood that any given deposit from resort X  will in fact get claimed. It use dot be claimed for trade but now it also seems to have been expanded to claimed as rental.  They somehow have factored in the idea that there is a ceiling on how many deposits will easily get claimed vs becoming saturated (thus dropping the average value).  If your resort has a high utilization factor it means that even with many more deposits the redeem rate will remain high (as in 90%+). If that is the case then virtually every deposit gets a relatively high amount of TPU's in weeks - Points in the RCI Point system.
> 
> ...


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 17, 2013)

> My 24 tpu came from a deposit of a week that cost me $750 mf. so I see the calculation differently
> 
> Extra Vacation Price for week 21 2014 = $323 (1BR VV&P)
> Week 21 2014 Exchange = $199 + $750 (1BR VV&P)
> ...



This is only true if all the places where you want to go are typically available for close to that $323 price.  In that case, your right.  At some point you need to use the TPUs so you may as well use them somewhere.  But many places will never be available for $323 rental, and obviously, if you want to go to these places you look to save your TPUs for these trips.  DVC is good example.  Cape Cod, Newport RI, Virginia Beach, Ocean City, NC beaches and SC beaches are other examples of places that are never available to rent for cheap in the summer.  Hawaii is never cheap to rent.  I'm sure there are lots of places like this.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 17, 2013)

> Good points John. Would it not also seem reasonable that competition comes into play? If they offer too few TPU for deposits or charge too many to exchange, then folks will just drift to other exchange companies (although admittedly most owners do not belong to two exchange companies or can deposit in more than one exchange company).



If anything - I'd say RCI is more concerned about losing Vacation Villages as a partner (going back to the point Timeos made earlier about volumes).  Vacation Villages supplies them with a lot of units.  Some of their resorts are affiliated with II.  If they are not happy with either company, they can move the affililation.  That's a lot of lost membership fees and exchange fees (and units in general - even at $269, RCI is making a profit for their part).  It's the resort that may end up losing out when the cost gets too low (when you factor in cleaning fees, wear and tear of rooms, utility costs, etc.)

But no, it is doubtful that RCI is setting the costs low for these weeks to retain individual members.  It's not all weeks that are priced this way - it's the ones RCI feels confident they will have an oversupply of if they don't offer them for that price (see November weeks on the east coast, mud weeks at ski resorts, etc.)


----------



## vckempson (Jun 17, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> ....  It's the resort that may end up losing out when the cost gets too low (when you factor in cleaning fees, wear and tear of rooms, utility costs, etc.)
> 
> But no, it is doubtful that RCI is setting the costs low for these weeks to retain individual members.  It's not all weeks that are priced this way - it's the ones RCI feels confident they will have an oversupply of if they don't offer them for that price (see November weeks on the east coast, mud weeks at ski resorts, etc.)



The cost for cleaning, wear and tear is a part of MF's and have absolutely nothing to do with exchanges, extra vacations or the costs for such.  The resorts plan their fees and wear and tear based upon ongoing occupancy.  It doesn't matter where the occupancy comes from.

The second part makes perfect sense.  There's a certain price point where virtually all units in Orlando will get taken.  You seem to look at it in a negative way, but they are just matching the inventory supply with the demand at a price point to clear the shelves and maximize profit.  The only correction, though is many off season weeks at seasonal locations will NEVER be taken at any price.  That's not the same as Orlando, where there's virtually unlimited demand, year round, if the price is right.  

BTW, even at $269 for a rental, RCI makes 33% more profit than off of exchanges.  I'd give whatever TPU's necessary for the deposits to keep them coming in for that.  Myrtle Beach cannot match the seemingly unlimited visitors to Orlando.  In 2011,Orlando got 54 million visitors vs 14 million for Myrtle Beach in 2010.  (latest figures I could find) There's just no comparison.


----------



## chriskre (Jun 17, 2013)

vckempson said:


> Myrtle Beach cannot match the seemingly unlimited visitors to Orlando.  In 2011,Orlando got 54 million visitors vs 14 million for Myrtle Beach in 2010.  (latest figures I could find) There's just no comparison.



Count me among those 54 million.  I visited probably at least 6 times that year so some of us are upping those numbers.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 18, 2013)

> The cost for cleaning, wear and tear is a part of MF's and have absolutely nothing to do with exchanges, extra vacations or the costs for such. The resorts plan their fees and wear and tear based upon ongoing occupancy. It doesn't matter where the occupancy comes from.



That's true and I never said it had anything to do with exchanges.  Even if the resorts plan for it, the only point I was making is that after RCI gets their cut and those fees are covered on a per unit basis, the resort doesn't make very much at a $269 rental rate (but they are likely hoping for food sales by their pool and other purchases to make up for this - and I'm sure they get it in enough cases to make it worth it.  Not talking about the extra deposited units RCI makes available for rental.  Some of those have to be excess that wasn't reserved for a floating date and RCI must have some sort of arrangement to rent those - not just VV&P but many resorts).



> The second part makes perfect sense. There's a certain price point where virtually all units in Orlando will get taken. You seem to look at it in a negative way, but they are just matching the inventory supply with the demand at a price point to clear the shelves and maximize profit. The only correction, though is many off season weeks at seasonal locations will NEVER be taken at any price. That's not the same as Orlando, where there's virtually unlimited demand, year round, if the price is right.



Yes - this is true.  On a whole, this management company is likely an important relationship to RCI.  But they have to balance that ultimately with what Dan mentioned - the phenomenon of more and more owners from other high demand places choosing to use or rent their unit rather than deposit.  At some point, if RCI's inventory becomes more and more concentrated in places like VV&P and less and less possible to get deposits at places that aren't easily available all year for $323 this ultimately impacts the total number of people depositing.  RCI won't let this happen and will have to balance the trading power to please the best "blend" for it's profits.  The risk of that blend changing is what's at stake here.  Maybe it never changes - but then that's the game of risk vs. reward.



> BTW, even at $269 for a rental, RCI makes 33% more profit than off of exchanges. I'd give whatever TPU's necessary for the deposits to keep them coming in for that. Myrtle Beach cannot match the seemingly unlimited visitors to Orlando. In 2011,Orlando got 54 million visitors vs 14 million for Myrtle Beach in 2010. (latest figures I could find) There's just no comparison.



Yep I'm sure that's true - I'm sure RCI struggles to rent those units at $269 in the winter, spring and fall.  The seasonality is a big factor and there are also a heck of a lot more units in Orlando (more real estate period) to begin with.   But that doesn't change the long term risk I described above.  RCI needs as those summer deposits in the Carolinas to stay competitive as an exchange company.  Same goes for the ski weeks, and pretty much any week that renting for maintenance is a legitimate alternative for an owner who is unhappy with the trading options.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 18, 2013)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by vckempson View Post
> Myrtle Beach cannot match the seemingly unlimited visitors to Orlando. In 2011,Orlando got 54 million visitors vs 14 million for Myrtle Beach in 2010. (latest figures I could find) There's just no comparison.
> 
> Count me among those 54 million. I visited probably at least 6 times that year so some of us are upping those numbers.



Actually - I suspect that I will agree with you though I've never been to Myrtle.  I'm not much of an Atlantic Coast beach person myself, and I happen to like Orlando, but it really doesn't matter what I think.  I picked the area that I believed had the highest relative demand assessment during peak season (to supply).  On a relative basis, summer units in the SC beach area are in higher relative demand than Orlando units at any time of the year.  Based on total supply, all the south Carolina summer weeks are exchanged faster and or renters pay more and earlier to confirm into them (and it doesn't matter how much of a dive the place is - all the units are taken).  There really is no disputing this as you can see that there are few if any options available there for summer 2013 right now.  

If I was buying for the type of trip I most often wanted to take, I would have bought at a ski resort in the winter.  But I didn't want to drop 15K for a place like Marriott Mountainside or commit to 13 weeks of a year including offseason (required at the slope slide east coast resorts I'd be interested in).  Whistler had some places, but it's far from us and I decided given the trading power isn't so good and it's so expensive to fly there it wasn't worth it.


----------



## vckempson (Jun 18, 2013)

Again, I don't mean to suggest you've made any ill calculated decisions.  I also don't think one is necessarily better than the other.  After all, I own at both and am happy with both.  

There's a couple things you said that don't make sense to me.



bonk2boy said:


> That's true and I never said it had anything to do with exchanges.  Even if the resorts plan for it, the only point I was making is that after RCI gets their cut and those fees are covered on a per unit basis, the resort doesn't make very much at a $269 rental rate (but they are likely hoping for food sales by their pool and other purchases to make up for this - and I'm sure they get it in enough cases to make it worth it.  Not talking about the extra deposited units RCI makes available for rental.  Some of those have to be excess that wasn't reserved for a floating date and RCI must have some sort of arrangement to rent those - not just VV&P but many resorts).



What are you talking about?  MF's are paid by owners and it covers the upkeep of the units.  Extra Vacations are rentals by RCI, and to the best of our knowledge, they keep all that money.  Resorts aren't looking to make money on these.  These are separate things that don't impact each other.  

_______________________________________


bonk2boy said:


> Yes - this is true.  On a whole, this management company is likely an important relationship to RCI.  But they have to balance that ultimately with what Dan mentioned - the phenomenon of more and more owners from other high demand places choosing to use or rent their unit rather than deposit.



As you've pointed out, rental rates in Orlando aren't that high and owners don't tend to go year after year to Orlando, at least not once kids are grown.  The risks of lower deposits doesn't appear to much of a risk at all.

__________________________________



bonk2boy said:


> Yep I'm sure that's true - I'm sure RCI struggles to rent those units at $269 in the winter, spring and fall.  The seasonality is a big factor and there are also a heck of a lot more units in Orlando (more real estate period) to begin with.   But that doesn't change the long term risk I described above.  RCI needs as those summer deposits in the Carolinas to stay competitive as an exchange company.  Same goes for the ski weeks, and pretty much any week that renting for maintenance is a legitimate alternative for an owner who is unhappy with the trading options.



Not much evidence that RCI struggles at all.  There really isn't much seasonality in Orlando, certainly not winter or spring.  Their down time tends to be a week here and a week there, not 6 months as at the SC beach.  You're right that RCI competes with SC owners just renting out their units.  Pres Villas does appear overpointed relative to oceanfront resorts and that does cause me some concern.  

Also, truly seasonal resorts have other fundamental issues.  Off season owners are stuck with something not terribly useful, and difficult to even give away.  They are more likely to default and walk away causing an ever increasing problem for the peak season owners.  This has been much discussed over the past few years.  Only time will tell how it washes out.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 19, 2013)

> Originally Posted by bonk2boy
> Yes - this is true. On a whole, this management company is likely an important relationship to RCI. But they have to balance that ultimately with what Dan mentioned - the phenomenon of more and more owners from other high demand places choosing to use or rent their unit rather than deposit.
> 
> As you've pointed out, rental rates in Orlando aren't that high and owners don't tend to go year after year to Orlando, at least not once kids are grown. The risks of lower deposits doesn't appear to much of a risk at all.



I wasn't talking about deposits in Orlando.  Clearly there will never a shortage of deposits there.  I was talking about places where demand is higher than supply.  The places like the ski areas in winter and east coast beach areas in the summer that never have leftover inventory and never have to charge under $600 for a peak week because people are consistently willing to pay more.  The risk Dan mentioned relates to THOSE units not getting deposited and instead being directly used or rented by owners.  Will this ever happen?  It could if TPU in these places dropped low enough.  At a certain point, RCI would have to do something to entice more deposits from those locations.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 19, 2013)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by bonk2boy
> Yep I'm sure that's true - I'm sure RCI struggles to rent those units at $269 in the winter, spring and fall. The seasonality is a big factor and there are also a heck of a lot more units in Orlando (more real estate period) to begin with. But that doesn't change the long term risk I described above. RCI needs as those summer deposits in the Carolinas to stay competitive as an exchange company. Same goes for the ski weeks, and pretty much any week that renting for maintenance is a legitimate alternative for an owner who is unhappy with the trading options.
> 
> Not much evidence that RCI struggles at all. There really isn't much seasonality in Orlando, certainly not winter or spring. Their down time tends to be a week here and a week there, not 6 months as at the SC beach.



Re-read my post.  I said that RCI struggles to sell the offseason weeks in South Carolina NOT the ones in Orlando...


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 19, 2013)

> You're right that RCI competes with SC owners just renting out their units. Pres Villas does appear overpointed relative to oceanfront resorts and that does cause me some concern.



All the July units at Pres Villas seem to be taken for either a high TPU exchange rate or $865 for a studio...  Until this phenomenon changes, basic economics is saying these units are either fairly priced or underpriced.  Isn't that how supply and demand typcially works?  The other SC units are clearly  underpointed (like the slopeside units) and as a result less owners (Atalaya) deposit them.  If RCI wants more deposits, they'll eventually raise the TPUs for these places.  But this wouldn't result in excess inventory at Pres Villas because there would likely still be a shortage of supply in this area in the summer.  Honestly - I'm not exactly sure what the big draw is, but everyone seems to want to go to the east coast beaches in the summer.  Check II too - there is absolutely no summer availability.    Some people don't want to pay for the flight - but I can't imagine why anyone would pay $865 for a studio in SC even if it was beachfront.  Personally - for the money put me on an airplane to Aruba where the water is clearer, and the temperature is more comfortable due to the Tradewinds (and Marriott Ocean Club / Surf Club studios are I'm sure nicer than all these places - and easier to trade into in the summer). But hey, that's just me...


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 19, 2013)

I should note that I feel the same way personally about Orlando in the summer as I do about SC - maybe worse. I have no interest in waiting in hot lines at the theme parks in 100 degree weather without a breeze due to being located inland.  

But Disney is Disney, and the East Coast beaches are what they are and obviously there are tons of people who feel very differently from me!


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 20, 2013)

Get em while they are hot - $229 for late August 2BR units @ VV&P.  II has the best Orlando deal right now though.  Sheraton Vistana in late August 2BR for $217 plus today you get a free extra vacation for booking a getaway.  Have to admit that's a really good deal.


----------



## chriskre (Jun 20, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> Get em while they are hot - $229 for late August 2BR units @ VV&P.  II has the best Orlando deal right now though.  Sheraton Vistana in late August 2BR for $217 plus today you get a free extra vacation for booking a getaway.  Have to admit that's a really good deal.



II's deal is certainly better.
I posted it in the sightings.


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 20, 2013)

Then take places you never even see online because they always get taken by ongoing searches as soon as they are deposited.  Owning a week like that, one would have to be a fool to give it to an exchange company that prostitutes itself to big developers in overbuilt areas where timeshare inventory is a dime a dozen.  SFX is the logical place to take those.  Let Orlando trade with similar places like the Canary Island and Branson.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 25, 2013)

Maybe - but SFX doesn't have the same selection as RCI. West coast is useless to me and that's where SFX does best.   Perhaps they are good internationally too, I wouldnt know about that.


----------



## Carolinian (Jun 25, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> Maybe - but SFX doesn't have the same selection as RCI. West coast is useless to me and that's where SFX does best.   Perhaps they are good internationally too, I wouldnt know about that.



I got London 2BR from them, the holy grail of timeshare, and they later offered me another London at a time I could not go.  SFX rocks!

RCI will never get my two summer UK weeks ever again with this crappy TPU system where they overvalue the overabundant inventory and undervalue the inventory that is rare and hard to get.  I do much better with a mix of SFX, DAE, and UKRE.  UKRE gives me double credits for either of my weeks as long as I do not exchange back into late July of August.  That is great for me as I like May-June or September much better anyway!


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jun 29, 2013)

> I got London 2BR from them, the holy grail of timeshare, and they later offered me another London at a time I could not go. SFX rocks!



Yes - it seems like (from what people say) SFX is good for big cities (I've seen lots of confirmations for Manhattan Club, for example).  Personally, my Hyatt CC points serves my needs for city trips typically for us shorter than other vacations.  

I've never used SFX, but from what I've seen from TUGGERS unfortunately I don't think it would serve our interests as there isn't a good selection of places (besides Manhattan Club) within driving distance of the northeast US or in the Caribbean. IMO - RCI has the best selection in the NE and II wins for the Caribbean.  Doesn't seem like SFX has much in these areas.    I might consider trying them for a west coast ski trip.


----------



## Smokatoke (Jul 1, 2013)

I'm starting to wonder if you have a dog in TPU like Vegas properties, but are gold rated in RCI, that it is worth the $5K to upgrade to RCI points. Not sure why the valuation is so drastically different but Grandview is a very good example. I believe on the highest end you can get is 25-30TPU for a 2Bedroom in the summer months. In points summer months for the same is 98K in RCI points.

Now take these values and compare them to equal units in their respective systems. A week at Elara is 27TPU vs 51K in RCI Points. In TPU you have to use 100% of your value to obtain this unit but in points you use only 52%. Why such a wide variance? I booked a week in Maui during the summer with the other 41K (5K to spare) furthering the point that in Points you some how are given much greater value for your property than in TPU. Is this the same in all instances (properties) when going from TPU to points?


----------



## MichaelColey (Jul 1, 2013)

Smokatoke said:


> I'm *starting to wonde*r if you have a dog in TPU like Vegas properties, but are gold rated in RCI, that it is *worth the $5K to upgrade to RCI points*. Not sure why the valuation is so drastically different but Grandview is a very good example. I believe on the highest end you can get is 25-30TPU for a 2Bedroom in the summer months. In points summer months for the same is 98K in RCI points.


Absolutely not.  It would be much better to just give away your non-converted property (or even pay someone to take it) and buy one that is already converted.  That would cost a FRACTION of the $5k that it would take to convert it to points.


----------



## Smokatoke (Jul 2, 2013)

MichaelColey said:


> Absolutely not.  It would be much better to just give away your non-converted property (or even pay someone to take it) and buy one that is already converted.  That would cost a FRACTION of the $5k that it would take to convert it to points.



Ah yes, good point... I just saw a 122K property on ebay for less than $1000. Still baffles me on the huge valuation difference


----------



## mlefferts (Jul 2, 2013)

Smokatoke said:


> Ah yes, good point... I just saw a 122K property on ebay for less than $1000. Still baffles me on the huge valuation difference



this sold for over $3k (actually over $4k:http://www.ebay.com/itm/GRANDVIEW-L...90817992738?pt=Timeshares&hash=item2c6da38022). There is another one currently listed over $6k with a make an offer button:http://www.ebay.com/itm/GRANDVIEW-A...11108663662?pt=Timeshares&hash=item19de97a96e.

The 98k points at grandview end between $1500-2000.

If you own a week that converts to 122k points and they offer to convert it for $3k, I'd do it. Not on a 98k point week, though.


----------



## tschwa2 (Jul 2, 2013)

The reason for the big difference (tpu's vs RCI points) at resorts like the grand view is simple.  RCI and the resort came up with the deal as a sales tool to get current owners to pay to convert and to help sell unsold and future inventory.  Most likely in exchange RCI gets a boatload of unsold inventory as deposits for so many years and gets to keep the exchange fees and/or rental fees.  Based on supply vs demand the tpu's are a more accurate judge of supply vs demand but RCI doesn't claim to solely use supply/demand to come up with numbers.

Other resorts may not have enough extra inventory to "deal" with RCI or may chose not to do so.Just because RCI makes back room deals doesn't mean that I won't deal with them as long as I feel I can still get something useful in return.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jul 5, 2013)

I'm curious - can RCI change the points allocations at a later date, or is it set in stone?  In other words, if you buy a 98K contract, can they make it worth less later?


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 5, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> I'm curious - can RCI change the points allocations at a later date, or is it set in stone?  In other words, if you buy a 98K contract, can they make it worth less later?



Yes, they can change up or down but it hasn't happened very often.


----------



## gnorth16 (Jul 6, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> Yes, they can change up or down but it hasn't happened very often.



If the resort loses it's gold crown rating, it will surely drop.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 6, 2013)

gnorth16 said:


> If the resort loses it's gold crown rating, it will surely drop.



And we had a non-rated resort that climbed up to Silver Crown and got a bump up in point value.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jul 6, 2013)

Does anyone know of a place that's been downgraded?  I suppose that if RCI raised the point values for some places and not others - this would end up being almost the same as downgrading.  Doesn't seem like they change the points much though.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 8, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> Does anyone know of a place that's been downgraded?  I suppose that if RCI raised the point values for some places and not others - this would end up being almost the same as downgrading.  Doesn't seem like they change the points much though.



Compared to what?  Changes since Points Lite was imposed, or comparing Points Lite trading power with trading power prior to Points Lite.?  For the later, there was a poll on another site whose results showed about half the respondents had their trading power decline and about half had it stay the same or increase.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 8, 2013)

bonk2boy said:


> Get em while they are hot - $229 for late August 2BR units @ VV&P.  II has the best Orlando deal right now though.  Sheraton Vistana in late August 2BR for $217 plus today you get a free extra vacation for booking a getaway.  Have to admit that's a really good deal.



That tells you all you need to know about supply and demand in Orlando.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 8, 2013)

If  an exchange system is going to give like for like, then honest numbers are critical on both sides.  Giving a very different number for deposit of the same week at the very same point in time compared to what it is offered for as an exchange is dishonest on its face.  Supply and demand are always changing, and that can honestly vary over time, but NOT at the same point in time. 





ronparise said:


> When you talk about supply and demand, I think you are wrong to suggest that there is (or should be) any relationship between deposits and exchanges. They are two different and two separate transactions done at two different times and they are not related. That I am given 20 tpu for a deposit, today, has nothing to do with what anyone might be willing to pay to stay there in the future...
> 
> And I just dont understand what you are getting at when you say 24 tpu=$123 of savings
> 
> ...


----------

