# Anyone notice a significant drop in t/p? [trading power]



## MuranoJo (Oct 30, 2010)

Just today, wow, across the board.  And I checked in a few times.  
Also extended a week a few days ago and now it's completely gone.  RCI people say they see it.  May be a temporary glitch or a view of what's in store mid November.

Just curious if others have seen it.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 30, 2010)

I've also noticed a significant drop in t.p. this last week.  But I suspect that once we get past Halloween the store inventories will return normal.


----------



## tahoeJoe (Oct 30, 2010)

muranojo said:


> Just today, wow, across the board.  And I checked in a few times.
> Also extended a week a few days ago and now it's completely gone.  RCI people say they see it.  May be a temporary glitch or a view of what's in store mid November.
> 
> Just curious if others have seen it.



What is a t/p? Toilet paper?

-TJ


----------



## LLW (Oct 30, 2010)

tahoeJoe said:


> What is a t/p? Toilet paper?
> 
> -TJ



I am guessing that in post #1 the poster meant trading power, and in post #2 the poster meant toilet paper.


----------



## MuranoJo (Oct 31, 2010)

LLW said:


> I am guessing that in post #1 the poster meant trading power, and in post #2 the poster meant toilet paper.



I am guessing you are guessing right!


----------



## Carolinian (Oct 31, 2010)

My, oh, my, who would ever suspect that RCI would play games with trading power right at the changeover to its new trading regime?  Oh, I know . . .''but they promised!''


----------



## MuranoJo (Oct 31, 2010)

OK, 'nuff said.  I regret ever posting this.  

Maybe TUG can also implement a 'value scale' so we can see if our postings would be deemed valuable or of interest before we post.

But you know, that would be a very qualitative, behind-the-scenes judgment call from the evil TUG administrators.


----------



## JudiZ (Oct 31, 2010)

*Civility...again*



muranojo said:


> OK, 'nuff said.  I regret ever posting this.
> 
> Maybe TUG can also implement a 'value scale' so we can see if our postings would be deemed valuable or of interest before we post.
> 
> But you know, that would be a very qualitative, behind-the-scenes judgment call from the evil TUG administrators.



I agree. Civility is becoming the lost art of civilization. I apologize for the portion of Americans...Tuggers...who can't be civil. Answer, don't answer, but for goodness' sake, can you not be polite? As my dear Meme would ask,"Were you raised in a barn?"

Once again, I lurk and I cringe.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 31, 2010)

Who wasn't civil in this thread?  Maybe I missed something?  I think Steve (Trog) was just joking about the TP.  

Carolinian is pointing out that before these changes, maybe RCI is reducing trading power, even though some are saying that won't happen, because RCI said it won't happen.  I also doubt RCI's word.


----------



## MichaelColey (Oct 31, 2010)

I think the toilet paper shortage in the stores is probably RCI's fault, too.

On a serious note, I just checked the trading power of my deposits, and I don't see any significant change.  One deposit that saw 65k units two weeks ago sees 64k units today.  Another that has seen 105k units for the past month still sees 105k units.  A third unit that saw 100k units a couple months ago sees 102k units now.  (But the gain is understandable since it's a Feb/2012 week.  I expect to see it peak at about 115k units in a few months.)

What kind of drop are you seeing that you consider it "significant"?


----------



## Mel (Oct 31, 2010)

I have 4 weeks on deposit, all spring beach weeks, and didn't see any major difference with them either.  Probably another instance of increasing the number of bands.  Some are seeing changes, others are not.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 31, 2010)

I saw a decrease in trading power for my Wyndham red studio deposits over the past week.  I was seeing 89K units and only week 85K today, and I see less larger units in Orlando than I saw before.  

My Twin Rivers ski and summer weeks are also seeing a slight drop in trading power, but I only have them in our account to use them in PIC with Wyndham, so I guess I don't really care that much.  I need to sell some Val Chatelle or figure out how to use them in this new system.


----------



## bellesgirl (Oct 31, 2010)

I have noticed about a 2K drop across the board in the last couple of days.  But I have also noticed that at the end of the month there seems to be a drop and then it picks up in the new month.  I think it has something to do with basically zero availability for Oct, 2010 and not yet showing Oct. 2012, but that is just my guess.


----------



## bnoble (Oct 31, 2010)

I'm seeing fluctuations that are around 2-3% over the past week, but nothing that I would call unusual.  I don't think there was a revaluation a la 5/30/09---that one was extremely obvious when it happened, with a *large* hue and cry.


----------



## krj9999 (Oct 31, 2010)

My 2011 Grandview week deposit sees about 4500 less units than my 2010 week does for the overlapping time period.  I may have deposited too early, but wanted to get it in before the credit system started.


----------



## MuranoJo (Oct 31, 2010)

All of my units across the board dropped at least 25-30%.  As mentioned, I checked back several times, did refreshes, etc., and they didn't budge upward.  On top of that, the week I extended just disappeared.

Tonight, it seems to be edging back upwards a bit.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 1, 2010)

Increasing the number of bands is merely a technique for decreasing trading power.



Mel said:


> I have 4 weeks on deposit, all spring beach weeks, and didn't see any major difference with them either.  Probably another instance of increasing the number of bands.  Some are seeing changes, others are not.


----------



## "Roger" (Nov 1, 2010)

Carolinian said:


> Increasing the number of bands is merely a technique for decreasing trading power.


If Carolinian is talking about the Weeks program, yes this (decreasing everyone's trading power) can happen.  Fortunately that system is about to come to an end.

Long explanation: (I am sorry, but this becomes a double post.  However, I think when there is post that states something that is flat out impossible, TUGGERs need to see why.)

First what happens when there is a splitting of bands within a Points system:  Let us suppose before the adding of bands there were just two bands (to simplify) with ten people rated at 20 and ten at 10. Let us also take what some people might consider worst case scenario (just what you would expect from RCI) where RCI "lowers" half of the people when it creates new bands. ("Lowers" turns out to be an inappropriate word.) After the new bands are created, there are five people each at the levels 5, 10, 15, and 20. Now lets look at each of the four new groups:

The people at 5: They are definitely worse off. Before they could make an even trade to ten resorts, now they can only make an even trade to five. (The five that are considered comparable to their own resort.)

The people at 10: They are winners. They can trade for the same ten resorts that they could before. They have lost nothing in that regard. In addition, for five of those resorts, they can trade two for one. Finally, whereas before, they could not trade for any of the units rated 20, they can now do so. It would take a year and a half to trade for one of the units rated at 15, two years for a unit at 20. (Not great, but these trades were simply unavailable to them before.)

The people at 15: Modest losers. They can't trade for all the units that they used to even up. (Actually, what they can't do is "trade up" at the one to one ratio for the units rated 20 as before. There was a reason that they were not maintained at the 20 level - their units are not as good.) However, now when they trade for a unit at the 10 level, they still have change (extra points) to apply to some future trade.

The people at 20: Big winners. They can trade for everything (as before), but now get change whenever they trade down.

Summary -- Dividing into more bands will create winners and losers. *There is no mathematical scenario in which everyone loses.*

Now with a Weeks system things can be different:

Do the same split described in the prior post (with half the units being given lower trading value). Add to that a proviso that no one is allowed to trade up. 

What happens now is that whenever anyone trades down, a unit is left that is too expensive for anyone to afford. (Suppose, in the extreme, all of the owners of the units rated 20 trade for units rated 15. Now, no one is left who can afford the units rated 20.) 

In this scenario, RCI can skim off the expensive units and use them for rentals. That is what the Weeks system does, enable skimming and rentals.

I am not saying that this is what occurs, *but, for those who are forever suspicious of RCI and hate rentals, the worst thing that you can do is argue for the continuation of the one-for-one Weeks system.*


----------



## bellesgirl (Nov 1, 2010)

muranojo said:


> All of my units across the board dropped at least 25-30%.  As mentioned, I checked back several times, did refreshes, etc., and they didn't budge upward.  On top of that, the week I extended just disappeared.
> 
> Tonight, it seems to be edging back upwards a bit.


I don't know if this is related, but I had a REALLY bizarre thing happen today.  

I logged in and my numbers were down by about 50%!!  For all my weeks!  Then I realized that the weeks on deposit were for a totally different resort.  I wish I had printed it, but my first reaction was to see if I was even in my own account, so I clicked to the account info to verify it.  When I clicked back to the "search for a vacation" all seemed back to normal.

Very strange.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 1, 2010)

Roger, I am feeling okay about the new system.  My weeks that will probably get 15 in this new system will not be crazy expensive to use 2 to get a week at Shearwater, for example.  If my fees are only $500 for a prime summer week, and I have to use two deposits to get a February Shearwater, then I will just do it.  I have too many weeks anyway.  

And if I want a Shearwater week with my RCI Points, the cost is MORE than my two PFD summer CO weeks are worth.  If I have to give up more than two summer weeks to get Shearwater for February, I will have to sell my CO weeks.  I used to see Shearwater with my Colorado summer weeks and that changed on 5/30/2009.

Perhaps RCI's explanation on their Inside RCI page about the new system is too simple, considering the few levels they show?  There are too few "bands" in that article.  

Carole Ablett of RCI specfically told me via an email message that there were now eight levels of trading power, and there were four before 5/30/2009.  I see five levels between my two accounts, so I tend to believe her.


----------



## Rene McDaniel (Nov 1, 2010)

Right now I see 143,000 units with my SoCal summer beach week, which has averaged 144-145K over the past couple of months.  So, not much difference there.  

It's a strong trader and sees all the DVC deposits. But I'm not sure that it's in the very highest trade band, because my San Francisco week can pull things that it can't.  My SF deposit quickly pulled an exchange over the summer, so I don't have it to compare with right now.

--- Rene


----------



## BevL (Nov 1, 2010)

Where I've seen a drop is the difference in the number of units of my SoCal, which is still in the 140s and my Island park which has dropped from about 5K below that to about 7K below that.

Tweaking before they roll out the new system - who knows if it will equate to the number of "credits" our weeks will have after the change.


----------



## MichaelColey (Nov 1, 2010)

Carolinian said:


> Increasing the number of bands is merely a technique for decreasing trading power.


 


"Roger" said:


> If Carolinian is talking about the Weeks program, yes this (decreasing everyone's trading power) can happen. Fortunately that system is about to come to an end.
> 
> ...
> 
> Summary -- Dividing into more bands will create winners and losers. *There is no mathematical scenario in which everyone loses.*


If you look at the *extremes*, it helps to understand the potential problems even better. The extremes would be:

1) A system with 1 band, where anyone can trade for anything, and

2) A system with an infinite number of bands, where every week at every resort has a different trading value and is in a different band.

The first example is excellent for people with a dog week at a lousy unit, because they can exchange into anything. It's horrible for people with a good week, because they have a lot more competition for good exchanges.

The second example has absolutely no flexibility. You can *only* trade down. The people with good weeks see almost no change. The people with lousy weeks are most impacted.

I think there's a good balance somewhere in the middle.

It sounds like RCI is moving from 6 bands to 56 bands (trading power 5, 6, 7, ..., 58, 59, 60). I really liked 6 bands, but I don't think it's going to make a whole lot of difference, especially with the new ability of getting change and being able to combine deposits and change.

*Clarification: I saw someone post about this, and I just wanted to clarify that RCI is NOT (as far as I know) changing to a single band or an infinite number of bands.  I just gave these extreme examples to help people understand how we are affected when RCI increases or decreases the number of bands.*


----------



## rapmarks (Nov 1, 2010)

haven't checked today yet, but last week I was down from all units pulling 128k to 98k, so it is probably going to be worse today.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 1, 2010)

When you are charged a fee for using that change back, then nobody wins but RCI.  That is why the best option is to vote with your feet if it becomes an exact number system.  If the bands or ''range'' as it was called in the past remain, then it may be a closer argument about whether to stay with RCI or exclusively use other exchange companies.

While I would have agreed with you theoretically on your one band approach, the fact that DAE has eaten RCI's and II's lunch in Australia with that approach shows that in reality it does work.




MichaelColey said:


> If you look at the *extremes*, it helps to understand the potential problems even better.  The extremes would be:
> 
> 1) A system with 1 band, where anyone can trade for anything, and
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 1, 2010)

Nice try, but as explained in previous posts, it is the narrowing of what is considered like for like that actually increases RCI's skimming for rentals.  Of course, RCI is going to be skimming for rentals anyway under any system.  As I recall, you were one of those who seemed to approve of RCI's rentals anyway, weren't you?

But then your whole post is off topic.  Perhaps the idea is to get this thread merged with others and therefore take attention away from the declines people are seeing in trading power.  I got my last week out of RCI and exchanged, so I have nothing left at risk to check with.  However, I am not going to post anything else that might be construed as discussion of the new exchange regime to make this thread subject to being assimilated into the big locked thread.




"Roger" said:


> If Carolinian is talking about the Weeks program, yes this (decreasing everyone's trading power) can happen.  Fortunately that system is about to come to an end.
> 
> Long explanation: (I am sorry, but this becomes a double post.  However, I think when there is post that states something that is flat out impossible, TUGGERs need to see why.)
> 
> ...


----------



## bnoble (Nov 1, 2010)

> It sounds like RCI is moving from 6 bands to 56 bands (trading power 5, 6, 7, ..., 58, 59, 60).


As near as I can tell, this already happened---on 5/30/09.  Prior to that date, there were a small number (and six is about right) of very clearly identifiable trade power levels.  After 5/30/09, there were many more "steps"---some added between units that previously had been identical.


----------



## "Roger" (Nov 1, 2010)

Carolinian said:


> ...But then your whole post is off topic.  Perhaps the idea is to get this thread merged with others and therefore take attention away from the declines people are seeing in trading power. ....


 I was responding to this statement (and I quoted the statement just so that readers would know what I was responding to)...

_"Increasing the number of bands is merely a technique for decreasing trading power."_

When someone posts something that is not only false, but defies the laws of mathematics in an attempt to frighten people, I don't think that sort of statement should be left uncontentsted.  Maybe you do, but we differ on this.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 1, 2010)

bnoble said:


> As near as I can tell, this already happened---on 5/30/09.  Prior to that date, there were a small number (and six is about right) of very clearly identifiable trade power levels.  After 5/30/09, there were many more "steps"---some added between units that previously had been identical.



Wow, this is shocking to me.  Are there really that many levels now?  How would we check?  How is RCI going to manage, or are some of these levels (bands) due to late deposits of prime weeks?  

I do see a slight difference in my trading power for my studio and 2 bedroom units (same resort, same week, locking off the two units).   I don't see much real trading power difference between the two, but there are 1K more units available for the 2 bedroom.


----------



## MichaelColey (Nov 1, 2010)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Wow, this is shocking to me. Are there really that many levels now? How would we check?


I've contemplated putting together a trade test to try to analyze the trading levels (and have looked at the results of previous ones), but with regional blocks and trading preferences, it's really hard to compare apples to apples.

It'll all be moot in a couple weeks, anyway, since we'll effectively have 56 trading power bands once the new system rolls out.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 1, 2010)

While I see what you are doing trying to start a dispute off topic, I cannot let your allegation about being false go unchallenged.

Tuggers can certainly see the result of RCI's increasing the number of bands in the last round of trading power changes that RCI claimed were not trading power changes.  Quite a few people, due to more bands, lost trading power.  No one gained trading power.  With narrower bands, there are fewer weeks in any trading band.  Any time there are fewer options considered ''like for like'', as happens with the narrowing of bands when you create more of them, it leaves more on the table for RCI to skim for rentals, your creative ''new math'' notwithstanding.

Go back and read the posts about what happened to people's trading power when RCI narrowed the bands by creating more of them, and then maybe welcome to the real world if you understand it!




"Roger" said:


> I was responding to this statement (and I quoted the statement just so that readers would know what I was responding to)...
> 
> _"Increasing the number of bands is merely a technique for decreasing trading power."_
> 
> When someone posts something that is not only false, but defies the laws of mathematics in an attempt to frighten people, I don't think that sort of statement should be left uncontentsted.  Maybe you do, but we differ on this.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 1, 2010)

MichaelColey said:


> I've contemplated putting together a trade test to try to analyze the trading levels (and have looked at the results of previous ones), but with regional blocks and trading preferences, it's really hard to compare apples to apples.
> 
> It'll all be moot in a couple weeks, anyway, since we'll effectively have 56 trading power bands once the new system rolls out.



If there are that many bands, then how can RCI use such a simplistic diagram of little houses and numbers that range from 5 to 30?  Sounds like it will be much more complicated than we thought, and that is going to make it more difficult than ever.


----------



## tedk (Nov 1, 2010)

What i said in another thread about loss of weeks available has has obviously affected more people, so i am more than ever convinced this is something more sinister. I even said then could this be a way of lowering trading power ready for the new system, this it seems so. Where till a month or so ago i had only a thousand or so difference between my weeks this has now gone to over 12,000.Problem is you cannot prove anything as my dealings with MD Europe proved as he said there is nothing wrong with the system. So roll on 15th November or whatever date and lets see exactly where we are.
Ted


----------



## sandkastle4966 (Nov 2, 2010)

where the heck did the number "56" come from?  I think this was an example that it wasn't "6"......did I miss some information somewhere

having a hard time thinking RCI can manage that complicated of an algorithym when they can't even realize that it is more efficient in computing power to have us use the drop down menus and hit search rather than searching every time we make a selection........


----------



## MichaelColey (Nov 2, 2010)

The trading powers will range from 5-60, which is 56 distinct values.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 2, 2010)

One of the alleged insiders says that it will still trade within a band (or range as is used to be called), so if that is so, then then it will be less than 56. While valuations may cover all of those numbers, trading power may or may not.  If trading power remains within a band, only the top number in the range will be important, or even be revealed according to one of the alleged insiders.

If 5 is the bottom number, either this is the number for the 45 day window or it will be a major downgrade for the most marginal of timeshare exchangers, and thus damaging to any resort that has any numbers lower than the number for a 45 day exchange.




MichaelColey said:


> The trading powers will range from 5-60, which is 56 distinct values.


----------



## Mel (Nov 2, 2010)

Carolinian said:


> While I see what you are doing trying to start a dispute off topic, I cannot let your allegation about being false go unchallenged.
> 
> Tuggers can certainly see the result of RCI's increasing the number of bands in the last round of trading power changes that RCI claimed were not trading power changes.  Quite a few people, due to more bands, lost trading power.  No one gained trading power.  With narrower bands, there are fewer weeks in any trading band.  Any time there are fewer options considered ''like for like'', as happens with the narrowing of bands when you create more of them, it leaves more on the table for RCI to skim for rentals, your creative ''new math'' notwithstanding.
> 
> Go back and read the posts about what happened to people's trading power when RCI narrowed the bands by creating more of them, and then maybe welcome to the real world if you understand it!


If it was a narrowing of band, Roger is right.  While it may have effectively reduced the trading power of those at the lower end of the original bands, it also effectively increased the trading power of those at the upper end of those same bands (and anyone else above a given band) by reducing the competition for the weeks staying in their same band.

You're the one that has stated over and over that the system should not remain static.  If that is so, then when a given resort/week is evaluated every so often, sometimes it will become a bit more valuable, sometimes less.  The idea that these recent changes (and possibly the ones on 5/2009) might be due to an increase in the number of bands (and the reduction in the size of those bands) is certainly on topic, as it may be an explanation of what happened.

Some of your other "facts" are an exageration as well.  RCI has not said they will charge extra to use your leftover points, other than an exchange fee.  They will charge if you wish to combine them with other leftovers, but that is not required in order to use them.

And a one band system may work for DAE in Australia, but that is a small portion of the resorts worldwide.  I can't imagine that an owner of a peak week in one of the top 10 resorts worldwide would do any better with DAE than with RCI or II, because they don't get priority to exchange into the other top 10 resorts - they have to get in line behind anyone else who has requested those resorts.  So, what's the incentive for them to deposit with DAE?  But alas, that would be off topic.

If anyone who lost trade power has a sense of what weeks they can not longer get as exchanges, when the new system goes online, we can all check to see if they are just shy of enough credits to get them.  If so, then we know it was most likely an increase in the number of bands that caused the changes.

Sandkastle - you're right, few of us really wanted the interface we have now, because it is so slow.  The problem is a matter of how the web interface querries the mainframe running the exchange system.  They need to find a balance between speed and amount of information.  I would rather go back to more limited searches as the default, with the option for a full search, knowing it will take longer.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 4, 2010)

The information on the extra fee came from one of the RCI insiders posting on TUG.  I know you only want to beleive what RCI itself wants to release, and you treat that as gospel, but RCI has a history of downplaying the negatives in its changes, and members usually have to figure them out for themselves.  I remember way back when you did not want to believe that RCI was renting out spacebank inventory, either.  If you do not do anything but follow the RCI Party Line, then you do not get the full picture on what they are up to.

You are really trying to jump from one issue to another without any logical connection.  One of the strengths of the Weeks system I have long stated is that its valuation of weeks is dynamic, regularly adjusting for ever changing factors of supply and demand, a superior situation to the rigged and frozen point values in RCI Points.  However, that does not mean I am in favor of monkeying around with things like the number of bands, especially when they do it in a manner to reduce the number of trades availible to many members.

Obviously you do support RCI reducing the number of trades availible to many of their members.  I do not.  That is a big difference between us.




Mel said:


> If it was a narrowing of band, Roger is right.  While it may have effectively reduced the trading power of those at the lower end of the original bands, it also effectively increased the trading power of those at the upper end of those same bands (and anyone else above a given band) by reducing the competition for the weeks staying in their same band.
> 
> You're the one that has stated over and over that the system should not remain static.  If that is so, then when a given resort/week is evaluated every so often, sometimes it will become a bit more valuable, sometimes less.  The idea that these recent changes (and possibly the ones on 5/2009) might be due to an increase in the number of bands (and the reduction in the size of those bands) is certainly on topic, as it may be an explanation of what happened.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mel (Nov 4, 2010)

Carolinian said:


> The information on the extra fee came from one of the RCI insiders posting on TUG.  I know you only want to beleive what RCI itself wants to release, and you treat that as gospel, but RCI has a history of downplaying the negatives in its changes, and members usually have to figure them out for themselves.  I remember way back when you did not want to believe that RCI was renting out spacebank inventory, either.  If you do not do anything but follow the RCI Party Line, then you do not get the full picture on what they are up to.
> 
> You are really trying to jump from one issue to another without any logical connection.  One of the strengths of the Weeks system I have long stated is that its valuation of weeks is dynamic, regularly adjusting for ever changing factors of supply and demand, a superior situation to the rigged and frozen point values in RCI Points.  However, that does not mean I am in favor of monkeying around with things like the number of bands, especially when they do it in a manner to reduce the number of trades availible to many members.
> 
> Obviously you do support RCI reducing the number of trades availible to many of their members.  I do not.  That is a big difference between us.


Yes, the information about an extra fee did come from RCI.  But it does not necessarily apply to any use of leftover credits.  The fee is for _combining_ creidts.  If you trade your 50 credit week, using 40 credits, you have 10 left over.  You can use those for another exchange worth 10 without that extra fee, or combine it with other credits and pay the fee.  That's where you exagerate - you don't seem to want to accept that they are offering some option without an extra fee.

I am not jumping from topic to topic.  You are the one that loves a dynamic system (weeks vs points), but don't like the idea of a published dynamic system.  Many of us like the idea of seeing what we have, and perhaps even why we can't trade into what we want.  If nothing else, it should provide some answers for those who always seem to want what the rest of us would consider an impossible trade - they will be able to see the numbers and understand why their week won't trade into what they want - or what they need to do to make sure it does (for those that always wait until 4 months out to deposit, on the off chance they might want to use their week).

I have never said RCI didn't rent spacebank inventory - you keep making false attributions toward those who disagree with you.  RCI has renter Spacebank weeks since before Cendant was involved, just not as publicly.  RCI has reserved that right since at least 1992 when I first joined.  

And yes, I do support RCI increasing the number of "bands" even if it means some people cannot get the same trade they always have.  If they had kept only 5 or 6 bands, and published those numbers, rather than discussing average maintenance fee per point, we would see discussion about the cheapest maintenance fee for any given band.  You yourself have argued that 3 bands, or even 5, are not sufficient, though much of your argument has always been about where resorts fit into those bands.  

If RCI were to maintain as few as 6 bands, can you honestly say such a system is fair to those at the tops of their bands?  Assuming the "5" band is now broken down to 46-55, and the "6 band to 56-60, can you honestly argue that a 55 should trade the same as a 46?  Sure, the owner of the 46 is going to cry foul, but is it truly unfair?  I don't think so - it is simply changing the amount you are allowed to trade up for free.  And we were never guarenteed the ability to trade up in the first place. 

You accuse many of us of being RCI cheerleaders, yet you are the cheerleader for many other systems, including II.  Those exchange programs have their own problems, which you seem to ignore.  If you want a program that treats all deposits the same, that's great, but don't expect everybody else to follow.  We see value in what RCI has to offer - more value that we see in the other exchange companies.


----------



## suzanne (Nov 4, 2010)

back to topic of post: drop in trade power. My 2 weeks dropped over 1000 units from yesterday to day. Back when the big drop happened same 2 weeks dropped between 4 and 5000 units over night. Before this happened I was seeing 135,000 units now I only see 117,000. I'm not going to deposit my 2012 weeks until I see what the fall out is Nov. 15th. I may give DAE or Platinum those weeks instead.

Suzanne


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 4, 2010)

Again, you misrepresent my position.  I oppose a SEMI-published transparent system, which is the worst of both worlds.  That is where they publish the end number but not the methodology or supporting data to get there, creating both the incentive and the ability to cook the books.  RCI provides both formula and data for its award status designations.  Why does it refuse to for its new Points Lite numbers?

Given that no system could totally value all timeshares fairly down to a precise number, a range is the only fair way to offer trades.  Personally, rather than bands, I would prefer they use a percentage that each week could trade within, say 10 or 15% upward.

If I am a cheerleader for anything, it is for competition.  I have never advocated resorts disaffiliating from RCI.  I support dual affiliation with the big boys and getting the word out on the independents.   The more real competition there is out there, the more it will constrain the bad practices of the big players.  Nothing is going to keep the exchange system honest more than real competition.  As long as one major exchange company holds members in a quasi-monopoly trap, those members are prisoners of that exchange company's policies.  Sole affiliation with RCI coupled with a silence about the ability to use independents leaves members with the belief that if they want to exchange, they have to use RCI, and that is what leads to its quasi-monopoly control.



Mel said:


> Yes, the information about an extra fee did come from RCI.  But it does not necessarily apply to any use of leftover credits.  The fee is for _combining_ creidts.  If you trade your 50 credit week, using 40 credits, you have 10 left over.  You can use those for another exchange worth 10 without that extra fee, or combine it with other credits and pay the fee.  That's where you exagerate - you don't seem to want to accept that they are offering some option without an extra fee.
> 
> I am not jumping from topic to topic.  You are the one that loves a dynamic system (weeks vs points), but don't like the idea of a published dynamic system.  Many of us like the idea of seeing what we have, and perhaps even why we can't trade into what we want.  If nothing else, it should provide some answers for those who always seem to want what the rest of us would consider an impossible trade - they will be able to see the numbers and understand why their week won't trade into what they want - or what they need to do to make sure it does (for those that always wait until 4 months out to deposit, on the off chance they might want to use their week).
> 
> ...


----------

