# RCI and their questionable "Supply/Demand"



## skimble (Aug 6, 2011)

RCI claims "Supply and Demand" ... But this makes no sense to me....  
RCI is charging 35 TPU for a July San Clemente Inn week.  Yet, if I deposit my week with them, they will only give me 29 trade points for the Same Exact San Clemente Inn Unit!    
I called them to ask about this, and they claim it's based on supply demand.  

They say they have little supply of those weeks, so they are offering them at a premium right now, and that the cost may go down later.  
So wait... aren't there two sides to Supply and Demand.  If the supply is low, and demand is high, the cost should go up.  I get that.  But, shouldn't they be seeking to enhance their supply?  To enhance their supply, they should be offering a fair market value for week they seek.  If they sell it for 35, shouldn't they be offering me 35 trade points to deposit my week?  
Is RCI in the business of making a profit margin off points?   I'm under the impression that they make money off trade fees and membership fees.  
The San Clemente Inn cannot be the only resort they are doing this to.  

If I deposit my summer San Clemente Inn week, 1 bedroom unit, I cannot trade back in for summer (because they aren't giving me enough TPU to do so.)  

Wesley from RCI-- a supervisor, nice guy, tried to explain this to me, but it still doesn't jive.  
If I give them an ounce of gold, I expect an ounce worth of value for that gold.  RCI is supposed to make their money on the trade fees, not shavings from my gold.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 6, 2011)

SoCal beach summer is indeed gold, and long recognized as such on TUG. You are clearly being shortchanged on the number of points lite offered.  That is happening all too often with the rare weeks in timesharing under Points Lite.  On another board JBL who searches SW Florida on a daily basis and has for years reports that he has found the same thing in another one of those golden areas, Sanibel / Captiva.

In contrast are the overbuilt ''fools gold'' areas like Orlando where RCI too often does the opposite and gives more points lite for a deposit than they charge to trade in.  One report late last year on TUG was where RCI was giving 50 points lite for deposit of a particular Orlando week but at the very same time offering the same week for exchange for 10 points lite.

Values should indeed change over time, based on changing supply and demand.  That makes sense.  But having different valuations for the very same week at the same point in time, depending on whether it is a deposit or an exchange is just flim-flam, pure and simple.


----------



## skimble (Aug 6, 2011)

Carolinian said:


> Values should indeed change over time, based on changing supply and demand.  That makes sense.  But having different valuations for the very same week at the same point in time, depending on whether it is a deposit or an exchange is just flim-flam, pure and simple.



Thank You!  I really needed to post to find out if I was missing something.  

Talking to the supervisor, I was beginning to entertain the idea that RCI was acting as a Retailer, and I'm the Wholesaler provider.  That they "mark up" my week by 15% as their profit on the deal.  
Wesley even asked me for examples of other weeks where the value of the deposit was on par with the trade value.  I gave a few examples.  He looked up the supply side on his end and explained to me how they have a strong supply of those, so they can keep the cost low.  But for San Clemente Inn, there are only 3 deposits in the system for the July 1st week.  Therefore, the price starts out high and decreases over time if the week remains in the system.  
I suggested to him that part of the supply-demand formula is SUPPLY... and in order to enhance supply, they need to offer a decent number of TPU.  Offering me 29 is not enough to entice me to deposit, and obviously, if you have only 3 deposits, it must not be enough to entice others to deposit either.


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 6, 2011)

skimble said:


> Talking to the supervisor, I was beginning to entertain the idea that RCI was acting as a Retailer, and I'm the Wholesaler provider.  That they "mark up" my week by 15% as their profit on the deal.
> Wesley even asked me for examples of other weeks where the value of the deposit was on par with the trade value.  I gave a few examples.  He looked up the supply side on his end and explained to me how they have a strong supply of those, so they can keep the cost low.  But for San Clemente Inn, there are only 3 deposits in the system for the July 1st week.  Therefore, the price starts out high and decreases over time if the week remains in the system.



If RCI gives you 29 TPU and then jacks up the TPU to 35 it will increase the chances that the week will get rented like these:

San Clemente Inn (#0511)

	Unit Type 	Max Occup
(Privacy) 	Kitchen 	Check-In Date 	Check-Out Date 	Price
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 16-Oct-2011 	Sun 23-Oct-2011 	USD 749.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 23-Oct-2011 	Sun 30-Oct-2011 	USD 569.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 30-Oct-2011 	Sun 06-Nov-2011 	USD 749.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 13-Nov-2011 	Sun 20-Nov-2011 	USD 749.99
	Studio 	2 (2) 	Partial 	Sun 20-Nov-2011 	Sun 27-Nov-2011 	USD 620.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 20-Nov-2011 	Sun 27-Nov-2011 	USD 749.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 27-Nov-2011 	Sun 04-Dec-2011 	USD 749.99
	Studio 	2 (2) 	Partial 	Sun 04-Dec-2011 	Sun 11-Dec-2011 	USD 557.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 04-Dec-2011 	Sun 11-Dec-2011 	USD 749.99
	1 Bedroom 	6 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 11-Dec-2011 	Sun 18-Dec-2011 	USD 683.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 11-Dec-2011 	Sun 18-Dec-2011 	USD 749.99
	Studio 	2 (2) 	Partial 	Sun 18-Dec-2011 	Sun 25-Dec-2011 	USD 557.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 18-Dec-2011 	Sun 25-Dec-2011 	USD 749.99
	Studio 	2 (2) 	Partial 	Sun 25-Dec-2011 	Sun 01-Jan-2012 	USD 692.99
	1 Bedroom 	6 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 25-Dec-2011 	Sun 01-Jan-2012 	USD 845.99
	1 Bedroom 	6 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 05-Feb-2012 	Sun 12-Feb-2012 	USD 611.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 05-Feb-2012 	Sun 12-Feb-2012 	USD 611.99
	1 Bedroom 	6 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 12-Feb-2012 	Sun 19-Feb-2012 	USD 611.99
	Studio 	2 (2) 	Partial 	Sun 19-Feb-2012 	Sun 26-Feb-2012 	USD 557.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 19-Feb-2012 	Sun 26-Feb-2012 	USD 683.99
	1 Bedroom 	6 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 19-Feb-2012 	Sun 26-Feb-2012 	USD 683.99
	Studio 	2 (2) 	Partial 	Sun 26-Feb-2012 	Sun 04-Mar-2012 	USD 530.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 26-Feb-2012 	Sun 04-Mar-2012 	USD 647.99
	1 Bedroom 	6 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 04-Mar-2012 	Sun 11-Mar-2012 	USD 647.99
	Studio 	2 (2) 	Partial 	Sun 11-Mar-2012 	Sun 18-Mar-2012 	USD 530.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 11-Mar-2012 	Sun 18-Mar-2012 	USD 647.99
	Studio 	2 (2) 	Partial 	Sun 18-Mar-2012 	Sun 25-Mar-2012 	USD 530.99
	1 Bedroom 	6 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 18-Mar-2012 	Sun 25-Mar-2012 	USD 647.99
	Studio 	2 (2) 	Partial 	Sun 25-Mar-2012 	Sun 01-Apr-2012 	USD 530.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 25-Mar-2012 	Sun 01-Apr-2012 	USD 647.99
	1 Bedroom 	6 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 25-Mar-2012 	Sun 01-Apr-2012 	USD 647.99
	Studio 	2 (2) 	Partial 	Sun 08-Apr-2012 	Sun 15-Apr-2012 	USD 557.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 15-Apr-2012 	Sun 22-Apr-2012 	USD 647.99
	1 Bedroom 	6 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 15-Apr-2012 	Sun 22-Apr-2012 	USD 647.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 22-Apr-2012 	Sun 29-Apr-2012 	USD 647.99
	1 Bedroom 	6 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 22-Apr-2012 	Sun 29-Apr-2012 	USD 647.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 29-Apr-2012 	Sun 06-May-2012 	USD 647.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 27-May-2012 	Sun 03-Jun-2012 	USD 719.99
	1 Bedroom 	4 (4) 	Partial 	Sun 03-Jun-2012 	Sun 10-Jun-2012 	USD 719.99 

So more CASH for RCI - they don't want no stinkin' TPUs for profit - just CASH.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 6, 2011)

You hit the nail on the head.  The whole Points Lite shell game is more related to RCI's rental to the public operations than it is to exchanging.


----------



## skimble (Aug 7, 2011)

I'm able to rent my units every year for between $750 and $895... RCI offering it for less than maintenance fees is a ridiculous money grab.  
I've often wondered what goes on behind the scene-- why this resort gets red-headed-step-child treatment in the system.  There's obviously strong trade value-- with VERY few June units available at this time.  And, exchanges for July just opened.  Next to the Grand Pacific Resorts, this is the best alternative for So Cal coast.
I'm leery of RCI valuations with SCI.  
The San Clemente Inn is severely undervalued in RCI Points-- it's a steal.  In fact, it's so undervalued, it's hard to believe anyone would buy in to the RCI Points option.  People pay over $640 in maintenance fees and they get between 18K and 34K points in RCI Points (hardly worth it!... not even 2 pennies per point)  This won't get you squat in the exchange system.  They only have 100 Points owners, but RCI gets 2 units of every kind for every week interval.  There's something screwy about this whole deal--VRI probably owns all the Points weeks, and there's probably a deal embedded in there.  

I know one of the board members pretty well, and I know management pretty well.  I may be running for the board next year.  
Undervaluing the TPU is an issue that the resort or VRI need to tackle.  
Any suggestions on a good way to rectify this?


----------



## skimble (Aug 7, 2011)

Carolinian said:


> You hit the nail on the head.  The whole Points Lite shell game is more related to RCI's rental to the public operations than it is to exchanging.



And, if that were the case, wouldn't they be seeking more prime inventory.  SCI may not be perfect prime, but it is CA coastal... demand is there.  It seems they should be interested in promoting inventory growth.


----------



## bnoble (Aug 7, 2011)

> I'm able to rent my units every year for between $750 and $895...


If you get better value by renting than by depositing, then that's what you should do.


----------



## miamidan (Aug 7, 2011)

29 will pull just about anything in the system seems to be a pretty good trader!

How come noone ever complains when they get more tpu than what it takes to get in?

Seriously 29 is a lot of trading power to work with.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Aug 7, 2011)

Its a matter of supply and demand...its not as simple as i'm going to make it here...but it should help explain it

If 100 people are depositing your week but only 50 people are requesting it...that would make your the value of your deposit half of the value to exchange into it...i.e. 50 to deposit 100 to exchange into it...but there is more to it then that...RCI also has a BASE TPU set for your resort...in which the difference in supply and demand is either added or subtracted from...that explains the 29TPU and 35TPU difference

I'm thinking in a 100 to 100 ratio, the TPU's would be equal between deposit and exchange most likely in your case around 30-32TPU's...But NO resort is EVER going to have the exact same amount of requests as deposits

There is also a matter of Wholesale vs retail values...you see when 7-11 buys products for its store they don't pay the sale rate as they will sell it for...i don't know if RCI uses this as part of their calculations...they may when comparing exchanges to rentals

When assuming that the TPU's should be the same between depositing and exchanging your assuming a very very basic formula that excludes just about EVERYTHING...RCI is a huge company its take ALOT more into account then your basic math


----------



## Rene McDaniel (Aug 7, 2011)

skimble said:


> RCI is charging 35 TPU for a July San Clemente Inn week.  Yet, if I deposit my week with them, they will only give me 29 trade points for the Same Exact San Clemente Inn Unit!
> 
> The San Clemente Inn cannot be the only resort they are doing this to.
> 
> If I deposit my summer San Clemente Inn week, 1 bedroom unit, I cannot trade back in for summer (because they aren't giving me enough TPU to do so.)



Skimble,

No, yours is not the only Southern California resort this is happening to.  RCI is stickin' it to plenty of resorts and owners.  My August 2011 use week had the same issue as yours, so I decided not to give it to RCI and rented it on Redweek for $950.  If they are not going to give me fair points for the week -- they aren't going to get my week.  Simple as that.  Take the money and rent WHERE you want to go, and WHEN you want to go. Heck, renting is actually much easier than dealing with RCI.  You can wait until next Spring to make your plans, and pick whatever dates you want. 

I just reserved my August 2012 week, which was one week earlier and I liked the TPU's on that one    So I deposited it with RCI.  If the TPU's were no good I would have kept it and rented it.  Super easy to rent SoCal summer weeks if you price them less than $1,000.  I rented my August 2011 week back in February.

--- Rene


----------



## Rene McDaniel (Aug 7, 2011)

miamidan said:


> 29 will pull just about anything in the system seems to be a pretty good trader!  How come no one ever complains when they get more tpu than what it takes to get in?  Seriously 29 is a lot of trading power to work with.



Miami Dan,
I think it depends on your area.  29 may be a lot of trade power in Florida or on the east coast -- but it's not enough points for summer in Southern California.  I had/still have an ongoing search using 39 tpu's for summer 2011 or 2012, and I haven't pulled squat!   I was hoping to at least pick up a last minute cancellation.  There are just not enough summer beach timeshare weeks out here for all the demand. 

In response to what the RCI supervisor told Skimble:  I suspect that SoCal summer beach weeks are picked up before they ever have a chance to "age" and lose trade power.  San Clemente Inn is just a few blocks from the beach, up hill tho'.  

My own opinion:  I think there are a LOT of owners who bought San Clemente Inn as a trader because it had reasonable maint. fees + good  location.  So, RCI probably gets plenty of deposits whether it gives owners good trade power, or not.  All those people who bought it as a trader have no desire to ever stay there, and will always be depositing weeks.

--- Rene


----------



## skimble (Aug 7, 2011)

miamidan said:


> 29 will pull just about anything in the system seems to be a pretty good trader!
> 
> How come noone ever complains when they get more tpu than what it takes to get in?
> 
> Seriously 29 is a lot of trading power to work with.



Sometimes, there are logical explanations for getting too many TPU.... maybe they overestimated the going rate.  It's a new system, and they have some bugs to work out.  
I realize 29 is a good number to work with.  

(Answering BNoble)  I typically rent 4-5 of my San Clemente Inn units every year.  I get a decent rent for them and it (along with my GPR rentals) pay for all the travel I do during the year.  
The 6th unit I own there is the one I use.  This year, I was not able to book week 27 (I'm on a waiting list... they're doing some construction and might not be done by wk 27... long story), and that's when we have a family reunion at the resort, so I needed to trade back in.  I'd love to deposit one of my other July weeks to pick up wk 27; they've priced me out for an even exchange.


----------



## BevL (Aug 7, 2011)

I don't know why but at my SoCal resort, I found that the week including July 4th was a lower TPU value than the five weeks afterwards.

I deposited mine and saw today the value was actually adjusted upwards by three TPUs - no idea why.

But frankly, based on the TPUs I got, I think you are right in being TO'd at 29 for a prime summer week.  I'm waiting for the hammer to drop - I don't think I will be getting what I'm getting from RCI indefinitely.


----------



## skimble (Aug 7, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Its a matter of supply and demand...its not as simple as i'm going to make it here...but it should help explain it
> 
> If 100 people are depositing your week but only 50 people are requesting it...that would make your the value of your deposit half of the value to exchange into it...i.e. 50 to deposit 100 to exchange into it...but there is more to it then that...RCI also has a BASE TPU set for your resort...in which the difference in supply and demand is either added or subtracted from...that explains the 29TPU and 35TPU difference
> 
> ...



I understand this... however I watched the system Every Day for a month to see if and when they released a week 27 unit.  I Needed this last unit to complete our family reunion.  If RCI has a starting value of 35, then my deposit (12 months out) should be 35.  If it goes down to 29 at he 10 month mark, then deduct those points.  
The base TPU value is rooted in timing and quantity.  Historically, how many units do they typically get in their inventory?  I can tell you with certainty, (I talk with management) they get very few.  So... supply is there, but it's low.  And, timing-- historically, how much time do they sit in inventory?  For the last two years, summer SCI weeks are gone by late September.  THAT demonstrates high demand.  
Already, late June weeks are gone, and July weeks have been severely depleted.  There's no question about the demand.  The part I have a problem with is on the supply side.  Why am I not being offered an abundance of TPU for depositing?  Better yet, why am I not being offered the BASE TPU for depositing?  
Yet, other, less desirable resorts are getting huge base TPU numbers, but their trade values start low.  
Base value is Base value-- should be the same no matter what.  Adjustments take time and should be based on inventory.  In the first month in the system (providing you're in the 100% range on deposit time), TPU and cost should be the same.  

It's a biased system. 
Like Carolinian said, there's a resort in Sanibel getting 50 TPU to deposit, but to trade in costs 10.  There's one in over-built Orlando that's the same way --high TPU, low trade.  
RCI puts their thumb on the scale to benefit MANY resorts in the system.  I'm angry because they're putting their thumb on the wrong side of the scale at MY resort!


----------



## skimble (Aug 7, 2011)

Rene McDaniel said:


> Miami Dan,
> I think it depends on your area.  29 may be a lot of trade power in Florida or on the east coast -- but it's not enough points for summer in Southern California.  I had/still have an ongoing search using 39 tpu's for summer 2011 or 2012, and I haven't pulled squat!   I was hoping to at least pick up a last minute cancellation.  There are just not enough summer beach timeshare weeks out here for all the demand.
> 
> In response to what the RCI supervisor told Skimble:  I suspect that SoCal summer beach weeks are picked up before they ever have a chance to "age" and lose trade power.  San Clemente Inn is just a few blocks from the beach, up hill tho'.
> ...



Rene, There are a lot of owners who have traditionally taken advantage of the low maintenance fees and used it as a trader.  However, things have changed a bit.  Our fees are close to $650.  And, booking a summer week is more competitive than ever.  In fact, the only way to solidly secure a summer week is to show up at VRI at 5:30 in the morning one year prior to checking in.  (And yes... I do this... along with about 20-30 other people each week in summer.)  By the time VRI opens the phone lines, there's nothing left.  
Few people stand in that line with the intent of trading it.  Most are users.  I've spoken with management many times because I've been curious about this (and the number of people who got suckered into RCI Points using SCI) and there are very few summer exchangers.  Most use their week (or rent it out.)  
RCI gets guaranteed deposits for Points and Weeks.  
Also, it's rare to find a last minute CA Coastal week.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 7, 2011)

You should use VRI*ety for your exchanges, as a VRI owner, if you are unhappy with RCI.  I understand your anger, I really do.  

I think it's wrong to give more than they get for values, but I was told by Carole Ablett, RCI higher-up person, assistant to Geoffrey what's-his-name (I think Ballotti-CEO of RCI) that RCI will adjust values a few times per year, and sometimes trading power for your week will adjust down, based on inventory vs. demand.  It could happen after you deposit and get low trading power, then it adjusts up, because there is demand.


----------



## skimble (Aug 7, 2011)

BevL said:


> I don't know why but at my SoCal resort, I found that the week including July 4th was a lower TPU value than the five weeks afterwards.
> 
> I deposited mine and saw today the value was actually adjusted upwards by three TPUs - no idea why.
> 
> But frankly, based on the TPUs I got, I think you are right in being TO'd at 29 for a prime summer week.  I'm waiting for the hammer to drop - I don't think I will be getting what I'm getting from RCI indefinitely.



For anyone who tracks or seeks So. Cal Coastal weeks, you know that last remaining resort weeks in the system.  One of them is Sand Pebbles.  I visited my parents when they stayed there.  It's a 5 out of 10.  It's small with a murphy bed-- a refurbished apartment complex.  The location stinks-- it's boxed in by PCH, you have no ocean views, and it's a long walk to the beach... and you can't even get to the beach at high tide.  
If you have any doubt about how RCI thumbs the scale, look at the value of a studio unit for weeks 27-32.     It gets between 47 and 52 points!  

(Compared with Sand Pebbles, at least San Clemente Inn has some units with an ocean view, some with park view--borders a state park, has TONS of amenities from restaurant with nightly entertainment to tennis and shuffleboard.)


----------



## GregT (Aug 7, 2011)

This is a very interesting post -- this is exactly the issue that I have with Marriott's new internal points system -- they skim points.

They skim every single week (any where from 4% - 22%).  My weeks, which are two excellent fixed weeks (both prime summertime in Maui), still got skimmed 13.3%.   RCI appears to be doing it now in isolated instances, but over time it may become the norm.

It's very frustrating in the Marriott system, and I'm disappointed (but not surprised) to see RCI starting to follow suit.  If II ever goes to a point based system, well, they will be next to skim.

Good luck to all,

Greg


----------



## bnoble (Aug 8, 2011)

> Marriott's new internal points system ... They skim every single week (any where from 4% - 22%).


With RCI, it seems to cut both ways.  Some weeks are awarded fewer TPU on deposit vs. what the exchange requires.  Others are awarded more.


----------



## Rene McDaniel (Aug 8, 2011)

skimble said:


> Rene, There are a lot of owners who have traditionally taken advantage of the low maintenance fees and used it as a trader.  However, things have changed a bit.  Our fees are close to $650.  And, booking a summer week is more competitive than ever.



Ok, I gotta respond to the $650 maintenance fees.  That's still VERY reasonable for California timeshares.  Over the last 10 years of ownership my San Francisco 1 bedroom has gone from $500 - $575 - $700 - $750 - $850 - 900 - 950 - 1050 -  $1,100.  The maintenance fee increases have been insane!  Plus, RCI only gives it 39 tpu for a summer week.

Also, I can't believe that RCI would give a Sand Pebbles summer week higher tpu's than San Clemente Inn.  That's crazy.  I think that San Clemente Inn is way nicer, too.  Maybe San Pebbles gets a tpu boost for being a San Diego area resort.  But if that were the case then San Clemente Inn should get a tpu boost for being Orange County and a 30 minute drive to Disneyland.  Makes absolutely no sense to me either.

Trying to book summer weeks at our resort is very difficult, too.  But they don't allow walk-ups.  So, it's every owner phoning in week after week, month after month.  We always spend an inordinate amount of phone time every summer just trying to get next year's week booked.  We start calling in June, and usually by the end of August we have **finally** gotten a week.  Some years we call every call-in date and NEVER succeed in getting a summer week, and end up in September.  A totally useless week when you have kids in school.

--- Rene


----------



## Mel (Aug 8, 2011)

skimble said:


> Sometimes, there are logical explanations for getting too many TPU.... maybe they overestimated the going rate.  It's a new system, and they have some bugs to work out.
> I realize 29 is a good number to work with.
> 
> (Answering BNoble)  I typically rent 4-5 of my San Clemente Inn units every year.  I get a decent rent for them and it (along with my GPR rentals) pay for all the travel I do during the year.
> The 6th unit I own there is the one I use.  This year, I was not able to book week 27 (I'm on a waiting list... they're doing some construction and might not be done by wk 27... long story), and that's when we have a family reunion at the resort, so I needed to trade back in.  I'd love to deposit one of my other July weeks to pick up wk 27; they've priced me out for an even exchange.


I wonder if this is at the core of your problem.  You are depositing a floating week, and some resorts have a provision in their contract with RCI that all deposits of floating weeks are assigned the same average trading power of all deposits from their floating window.  I looked at the deposit calculator to see if that might be the case with your resort, and it doesn't appear to be.  But what I did notice might be of use to you, if it is at all possible to change the week you have reserved.

Check-in dates of July 22, July 29, 8/5 and 8/12 would all produce the TPU you would need for your exchange.  RCI doesn't have those weeks available, except a studio on 7/29, so the supply part of the equation obviously leans in their favor.  I see there are New Year's Eve deposits available, and I don't know if those are fixed week or also floating.  If not, and the reservation window is only now opening for August, I would suggest trying to trade your current reservation for one that will maximize your TPU.  8/12 check-in would provide the highest TPU value of 37.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Aug 8, 2011)

Rene McDaniel said:


> O my San Francisco 1 bedroom has gone from $500 - $575 - $700 - $750 - $850 - 900 - 950 - 1050 -  $1,100.  The maintenance fee increases have been insane!  Plus, RCI only gives it 39 tpu for a summer week.
> --- Rene



You get 39 TPU for a 1br??  Wow, thats REALLY high


----------



## skimble (Aug 8, 2011)

GregT said:


> This is a very interesting post -- this is exactly the issue that I have with Marriott's new internal points system -- they skim points.
> 
> They skim every single week (any where from 4% - 22%).  My weeks, which are two excellent fixed weeks (both prime summertime in Maui), still got skimmed 13.3%.   RCI appears to be doing it now in isolated instances, but over time it may become the norm.
> 
> ...



How would it benefit them to skim?  The whole system is somewhat arbitrary the way they award points based on trade value.  Wouldn't it benefit them just as much to award a few extra points?  They're after trade fees and the $99 combo fee, aren't they?


----------



## skimble (Aug 8, 2011)

Mel said:


> I wonder if this is at the core of your problem.  You are depositing a floating week, and some resorts have a provision in their contract with RCI that all deposits of floating weeks are assigned the same average trading power of all deposits from their floating window.  I looked at the deposit calculator to see if that might be the case with your resort, and it doesn't appear to be.  But what I did notice might be of use to you, if it is at all possible to change the week you have reserved.
> 
> Check-in dates of July 22, July 29, 8/5 and 8/12 would all produce the TPU you would need for your exchange.  RCI doesn't have those weeks available, except a studio on 7/29, so the supply part of the equation obviously leans in their favor.  I see there are New Year's Eve deposits available, and I don't know if those are fixed week or also floating.  If not, and the reservation window is only now opening for August, I would suggest trying to trade your current reservation for one that will maximize your TPU.  8/12 check-in would provide the highest TPU value of 37.



The San Clemente Inn is requesting that they level out the point values, but it's not done yet.  I've tested the values for each week July-August, and there's a big disparity in point values week by week.  
If they are offering 37 points for week 32, they're probably going to offer it for 42 on trade.  

I've already contacted a board member about this and management.  They will be discussing this whole issue at the next meeting.  Already, there's a plan to start informing owners about alternative exchange companies.


----------



## GregT (Aug 9, 2011)

skimble said:


> How would it benefit them to skim?  The whole system is somewhat arbitrary the way they award points based on trade value.  Wouldn't it benefit them just as much to award a few extra points?  They're after trade fees and the $99 combo fee, aren't they?



It is an interesting question, on how the manager of the system benefits from skimming.

With Marriott -- assume there are 100,000 weeks in the point system (there's really about 700,000 weeks in the entire Marriott universe, but assume only 100,000 weeks are in the point system).

If Marriott skims the points equivalent of 10%, they've skimmed the equivalent of 10,000 entire weeks.   Practically speaking, those skimmed weeks will appear as individual daily fragments, but there are still 70,000 rentable days.  That's a lot of money that can be earned from renting those weeks.   Marriott has a different motivation in that it helps them to sell new points to their skimmed owners -- but RCI can still skim days that can now be rented.

So....Marriott established the skimming precedent, and RCI appears to be dabbling in it.    We will see what comes next in the timeshare world....

Best,

Greg


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 9, 2011)

skimble said:


> How would it benefit them to skim?  The whole system is somewhat arbitrary the way they award points based on trade value.  Wouldn't it benefit them just as much to award a few extra points?  They're after trade fees and the $99 combo fee, aren't they?



Wrap your head around it this way:

Let's say that for the year 2011 there are about 2 million weeks deposited in the weeks side - and lets say that on *average* RCI gives them 20 TPU

So RCI "pays" 40,000,000 TPU for all that product to put in the spacebank.

Now let's say that people want to withdraw from the space bank - but RCI charges an *average* of 28 TPU to withdraw.

So after about 1.43 million people get a week - the TPU's are all spent so no one can get a week with TPU (since they are all gone), but is the spacebank empty? No way there are still 571,428 weeks left 

RCI has just skimmed half a million weeks - get it

Where do you think all those "extra vacations" and "endless vacation rentals" come from since RCI doesn't own any resorts?

And it kind of explains why your availability and selection both suck.


----------



## theo (Aug 9, 2011)

*Unlikely...*



skimble said:


> Undervaluing the TPU is an issue that the resort or VRI need to tackle.



With all due respect, I sincerely doubt that either the resort or VRI has *any* influence whatsoever with RCI and/or the RCI TPU shell game. After all, as already pointed out by another poster, RCI's current practices clearly put more cash in RCI's "pockets", which is of course always RCI's primary only objective. Additionally, since VRI has its' own internal exchange program, why on earth would VRI have any interest (or motivation) to try to improve RCI's exchange program?


----------



## vckempson (Aug 9, 2011)

GregT said:


> If Marriott skims the points equivalent of 10%, they've skimmed the equivalent of 10,000 entire weeks.   Practically speaking, those skimmed weeks will appear as individual daily fragments, but there are still 70,000 rentable days.  That's a lot of money that can be earned from renting those weeks.   Marriott has a different motivation in that it helps them to sell new points to their skimmed owners -- but RCI can still skim days that can now be rented.



I don't think RCI is skimming to get rental weeks.  The vast majority of RCI weeks, from what I've seen and heard of, gets more points than it costs to trade back in, not less.   Also, as posted on another thread, tens of thousands of weeks never get exchanged each year anyway.  RCI doesn't need to skim to have weeks to rent as they already have more than they can rent. 

I admit that the negative spread must have something to do with rentals, though I'm not sure what.  It's also possible that the deposit side and the exchange side each have independent formulas to determine TPU's.  One common factor is that those resorts that have a low volume of deposits don't seem to get as many TPU's as they should.  It's almost like having a low volume of deposits results in a penalty reduction in deposit TPU's.


----------



## Bourne (Aug 9, 2011)

What about the few 100K+ weeks that are effectively crap and RCI takes them eitherways... not rentable...not usable...


----------



## skimble (Aug 9, 2011)

ampaholic said:


> Where do you think all those "extra vacations" and "endless vacation rentals" come from since RCI doesn't own any resorts?
> 
> And it kind of explains why your availability and selection both suck.



In the traditional Weeks system where a week was traded for a week, RCI banked on the fact that about 24% of all deposited timeshare weeks go unused in the system.  So, they skimmed about 15% of that for rental income.

I realize there are going to be people who get 2+ weeks for their single deposit; but likely, there'll be others who trade 2+ deposits for a single week.  So... that should, technically, balance.  
If that balances, then the system should resemble the system of the past, and they would still have the 24% unused inventory.  This is where rentals are supposed to be derived.  They shouldn't need to skim.


----------



## skimble (Aug 9, 2011)

theo said:


> With all due respect, I sincerely doubt that either the resort or VRI has *any* influence whatsoever with RCI and/or the RCI TPU shell game. After all, as already pointed out by another poster, RCI's current practices clearly put more cash in RCI's "pockets", which is of course always RCI's primary only objective. Additionally, since VRI has its' own internal exchange program, why on earth would VRI have any interest (or motivation) to try to improve RCI's exchange program?



VRI has over 120 resorts affiliated with RCI.  They have a vested interest in the well-being, stature, and reputation of every one of those resorts.  I think VRI has a heavy influence on the way RCI deals with the resort they manage.  It should be an insult to undervalue a high demand resort, but I happen to believe there is an agreement between RCI and VRI.  (just my own belief... there has to be a reason why this resort is thrown under the bus and other VRI resorts are getting exaggerated value.)


----------



## theo (Aug 10, 2011)

*We may just have to agree to disagree...*



skimble said:


> I think VRI has a heavy influence on the way RCI deals with the resort they manage.....I happen to believe there is an agreement between RCI and VRI.  (just my own belief... there has to be a reason why this resort is thrown under the bus and other VRI resorts are getting exaggerated value.)



From my own experiences and observations, some of them as a BOD member at a VRI managed facility, I've just never seen much (if any) evidence that VRI particularly gives a hoot about RCI actions. In past on-site discussions and meetings with VRI reps, I can't even recall RCI ever being mentioned --- even in passing.

Personally, I believe that RCI *always* acts in their own (and *only* in *their own*) best financial interest.

None of this means that I'm right (or that you're wrong). Yours might well be an entirely different or unique situation, for reasons which I certainly don't and won't pretend to understand from a coast away...


----------



## loafingcactus (Aug 10, 2011)

I think this conversation is slightly misdirected by the assumption that all or even most timeshare users are like tug members, in other words and over assumption in the efficiency of the marketplace.

I am going to guess that the vast majority of timeshare owners are nothing like tug members, and are represented by those occasional first time posters who say something like: I've been depositing in RCI because I don't even want to use my timeshare any more and all those points have been expiring and I'm just wasting money.

More points are surely being deposited than are being used.  Furthermore, even with good information, specific weeks are being deposited that are son low demand that no one wants them.

I wouldn't blame these inefficiencies on RCI, rather, they are part of the mix that RCI has to manage.  Plus keeping weeks that people might want, but sending them to cash before they become valueless...

Frankly it sounds like the "traveling salesman problem" on steroids.  It would take an enormous amount of computing power and programming skill to come close to managing it optimally.  Very suboptimal is to be expected.

Now, whether or not that suboptimal status is being manipulated to generate a cash cow... Continue that debate my friends!


----------



## skimble (Aug 13, 2011)

loafingcactus said:


> I think this conversation is slightly misdirected by the assumption that all or even most timeshare users are like tug members, in other words and over assumption in the efficiency of the marketplace.
> 
> I am going to guess that the vast majority of timeshare owners are nothing like tug members, and are represented by those occasional first time posters who say something like: I've been depositing in RCI because I don't even want to use my timeshare any more and all those points have been expiring and I'm just wasting money.
> 
> ...



It's plain and simple:   
They undervalue resorts some resorts when assigning TPU, and they overvalue other resorts when assigning TPU.  
It's a game.  Why should a crummy resort like Sand Pebbles or that other in Florida (and many others like this) get TPU assignments in the 50's for studio weeks that don't exchange in the system when offered for trade value in the teens and 20's?  
Then they give poor TPU value to resorts that trade much higher.  
It's a political game.  
It makes me wonder if there are some political favors being done for individuals who own at these resorts.  
I'm not even sure what the norm is.  Is it more common to have inflated or deflated values?  Am I more likely to get bonus (inflated) TPU assignments for certain areas that are high demand?  (and even then, SCI negates this... it's an incredibly high demand area.)  Are deflated point values assigned to older resorts?  Considering the age of Sand Pebbles, this is not likely.  
I'm convinced it's a political game.  The politics are either favoring the management company, board members, or highly influential, well-connected owners.  Something is tipping the scales at these resorts.


----------

