# RCI vs II



## Bruce W (Oct 21, 2007)

While I am sure this has been discussed in the past, we are considering changing from RCI to II ( our resort is dual affiliated)

Pros and cons vs each?

Thanks

Bruce W


----------



## beejaybeeohio (Oct 21, 2007)

*Better resorts?*

I could be wrong, since I can only speak as an RCI member, but it seems that some of the nicer, classier resorts are in II.


----------



## Mimi (Oct 21, 2007)

We are members of both II and RCI, but prefer Trading Places International, which has free membership and awesome customer service. http://www.tradingplaces.com


----------



## gmarine (Oct 21, 2007)

This has been covered in many, many threads. Your best bet is to use the search function and read over the results.


----------



## BevL (Oct 21, 2007)

I prefer RCI because I always plan two years out.  Interval just doesn't seem to get the inventory until a year or less out.  

I like Interval because my week gets an accomodation certificate, which I use every year.  So for a relatively low cost, I get a second week.

I agree that I think Interval's resorts are, for the most part, a bit better.  You won't get many Marriott units or any Disney Vacation Club units through RCI.


----------



## anne1125 (Oct 22, 2007)

I much prefer RCI because my trades there are better.  II wants to take a 2 bedroom and offer a 1 in exchange.  It drives me crazy.

Anne


----------



## theo (Oct 22, 2007)

*One difference...*



Bruce W said:


> While I am sure this has been discussed in the past, we are considering changing from RCI to II ( our resort is dual affiliated)
> 
> Pros and cons vs each?
> 
> ...



I don't do a lot of trading, tending instead to use what I own.  Having used both RCI and II at one time or another, however, one difference which jumps immediately to mind is the ability to "search before deposit" with II, as opposed to "deposit first, then hope" with RCI. I also personally believe that RCI is getting more and more into rentals with every passing day (e.g., buying into SnapTravel, and now LeisureLink), despite RCI being a defendant in a class action lawsuit for that very practice. I further believe that this ever-increasing RCI focus on rentals detracts from the pool (and the quality) of potential exchanges. Just my personal opinion.


----------



## Lglen119 (Oct 22, 2007)

*there is no golden egg*

We have a 2BR Hawaii with MVCI, and have to use II.  Without fail, II tries to exchange us into a 1BR deal every time, and only after bitching to the marriott desk does it ever work out near expectations.  They also try to opt-out their ridiculous travel insurance on us before we can make a selection, as there is better coverage for less.  So much energy gets wasted on hoping someone will just do it right and make it an even exchange.  There's got to be a way around this with ease...

I recently had someone try to explain the problem to me, but i don't know how valid it is.  If the resort can RENT a room at $300 a night, why would they put it up for exchange inventory for $0?  So, they limit the inventory exchangers can get, making it a scramble and hassle.


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 22, 2007)

*You must have used II - you speak the truth*



anne1125 said:


> I much prefer RCI because my trades there are better.  II wants to take a 2 bedroom and offer a 1 in exchange.  It drives me crazy.
> 
> Anne



The never ending pressure to take smaller units, different areas, wrong dates is II's SOP.  The "quality exchange company" is a great slogan but nothing more.  I would never go back as a paying member of II although as one of the favored II Corporate members, which also usually means you are using points rather than weeks, II has been acceptable. Especially since that membership is free. Worth every penny (but not one more).


----------



## AwayWeGo (Oct 23, 2007)

*In The Book Doesn't Mean It's In The Inventory.*




beejaybeeohio said:


> I could be wrong, since I can only speak as an RCI member, but it seems that some of the nicer, classier resorts are in II.


They're in there, but the flip side is that some of those resorts are _so_ nice & _so_ classy (& costly) that owners would be crazy to deposit'm for exchange, because any exchange they got for'm would be worth less than the nice, classy timeshares they deposited.  Hence, the nice & classy timeshares are in the I-I _Dream Book_ all right, they just never (or hardly ever) show up as available when I-I members try to exchange into them. 

Having them in the _Dream Book_, though, works to the advantage of timeshare sellers offering weeks in timeshares affiliated with I-I.  Without saying so, they can flip to the pages showing top timeshares like Disney & plant the idea that all those I-I timeshares will be available for exchange using the 1s the sellers are selling as trade bait. 

Having never belonged to I-I myself, I cannot attest to the truth of that via personal experience.  (All my timeshare-exchange disappointments are via RCI.  So it goes.)  However that may be, I've read right here on TUG-BBS about the phenomenon of top timeshares that are in the book but not really obtainable via exchange -- read it so many times & so clearly explained that I can believe that's how it is.  Those with experience to the contrary should feel free to chime in & set the record straight. 

And it's not just I-I.  The people selling RCI timeshares also manage to plant the idea, without actually saying so, that all those like-for-like timeshares in the RCI _Dream Book_ are obtainable via exchange just about any time.  My Red Season Gold Crown 2BR in Orlando will pull all other red GCs anywhere & any time, right?  _(Yeah.  Right.) _

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


----------



## gmarine (Oct 23, 2007)

I explained this in TUG threads many times before. 

II is places a heavy emphasis on "like for like" exchanges. In order to trade into a high quality resort such as DVC, Four Seasons, Atlantis, Westin etc, you need to deposit a high quality resort 

The mediocre Williamsburg, Orlando or any other mediocre resort isnt going to do it.  John "Timeos2" constantly posts that II members cant exchange for the high quality resorts. And I constantly explain that you can, but you need to deposit a high quality resort in order to do so. His mediocre resorts wouldnt do it. Is that II's fault or are his expectations too high? We butt heads on this issue all the time and I feel his expectations for mediocre resorts are too high. Thats my opinion based on 13 years with II.

In 2008 I have my third and fourth exchanges to Atlantis, my sixth to DVC and in the past have been to Westin, Four Seasons, Hyatt's and multiple Marriotts etc. You need to use a quality resort to get one.

Does II sometimes try to get you to add to requests?  They do, usually when they feel you have put in a difficult request. All you have to do is ask them to not call you with other options.


----------



## gmarine (Oct 23, 2007)

Lglen119 said:


> We have a 2BR Hawaii with MVCI, and have to use II.  Without fail, II tries to exchange us into a 1BR deal every time, and only after bitching to the marriott desk does it ever work out near expectations.  They also try to opt-out their ridiculous travel insurance on us before we can make a selection, as there is better coverage for less.  So much energy gets wasted on hoping someone will just do it right and make it an even exchange.  There's got to be a way around this with ease...
> 
> I recently had someone try to explain the problem to me, but i don't know how valid it is.  If the resort can RENT a room at $300 a night, why would they put it up for exchange inventory for $0?  So, they limit the inventory exchangers can get, making it a scramble and hassle.



Please explain where you have found cheaper insurance than what II offers. II charges $64 total, not per person as every other travel insurance company does. It includes $1000 trip cancellation/interruption, $500 baggage, $300 travel delay, and $100 baggage delay. This is for every member of your traveling party. For $64. I would love to get something cheaper but I have never found one. And probably never will.


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 23, 2007)

gmarine said:


> I explained this in TUG threads many times before.
> 
> II is places a heavy emphasis on "like for like" exchanges. In order to trade into a high quality resort such as DVC, Four Seasons, Atlantis, Westin etc, you need to deposit a high quality resort



Which is exactly the point. The resorts most people own as paying members of II aren't going to get them the very limited "quality" resorts II loves to showcase. Yet owners of those same resorts, in a preferred corporate account, will . Cost to belong? Zero. Cost for the paying II sucker? At least $80/year. Do the math and look at the satisfaction levels.  If you own one of the "quality" units you'd have to be nuts to give it to II (or RCI) - use a company like SFX that actually gets you like for like. II even limits the top tier access to other top units with preferences and time limits. It's a shell game. 

Saying II is "like for like" is no different than RCI's "like for like".  Thats how it should be. It is the deceptive methods II loves to use to make it seem like all they have is DVC and Marriott and the like when in fact they have far more low class resorts than RCI does in my experience. It's easy to have quality as a slogan - too bad they don't deliver.  If you want to use II make sure it's through the preferred, corporate membership method which you won't pay a dime for.  Don't waste your own money to be disappointed.


----------



## jpl2004 (Oct 23, 2007)

*OT-"Preferred Corporate Account"*



timeos2 said:


> Which is exactly the point. The resorts most people own as paying members of II aren't going to get them the very limited "quality" resorts II loves to showcase. Yet owners of those same resorts, in a preferred corporate account,



Wondering

What is the  "preferred corporate account" II has?


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 23, 2007)

*II lures the names in with special deals.*



jpl2004 said:


> Wondering
> 
> What is the  "preferred corporate account" II has?



II has set up special, preferred accounts with industry players they wanted on board. To get them they give special treatment, sometimes allow fees that are prohibited for others, put time limits on availability of deposits and accept whatever the system wants to give them in exchange. Marriott, DVC, Sunterra and others are in that favored position.   

These preferred accounts aren't treated as the paying owners who deposit a single week are - they get all sorts of priorities and perks. If you are a member of one of those groups usually your II membership is paid for you but you can't deposit your "standard" weeks - it's only good for the preferred group.  The deposits are strictly controlled by the system.  Sometimes there are limits on what you can trade into.  But mostly those members get priority choices for trades, can use points instead of weeks and have an edge over the poor, paying II member.  It doesn't take long to figure out that paying an annual fee to be a second class member makes zero sense.  We dropped our II years ago and, since we enjoy far better trades for less deposit value using the corporate priority, haven't missed them one bit.  We would never pay to be an II member again.


----------



## gmarine (Oct 23, 2007)

What do you expect? You want to trade a mediocre Orlando or Williamsburg unit for DVC or Atlantis? Why should you be able to? Because II has them in their resort directory? II also has a section of the book explaining like for like exchanges. Check it out.

I dont have a corporate II membership. What I do have is some quality resorts that trade into other quality resorts. However,I would never expect my mediocre Westgate week to get me into an Atlantis or DVC quality resort.

As I have said in other threads, your problem with II is that you wanted to deposit mediocre resorts, yet you wanted top quality resorts in return. You need to use a high quality resort to trade for one. 

There are also plenty of units on the sightings board of DVC, Four Seasons, Marriotts, etc.


----------



## Bwolf (Oct 23, 2007)

*Back to the Topic*

We have II.  We own a nice week at a nice resort that gets an accommodation certificate if we chose to deposit.  We have great visibility with our resort and often see 3 bedroom units (ours is a 2 bedroom).  

HTH.


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 23, 2007)

*Why defend II? They won't defend you (look at your wallet $95 lighter at DVC)*



gmarine said:


> What do you expect? You want to trade a mediocre Orlando or Williamsburg unit for DVC or Atlantis? Why should you be able to? Because II has them in their resort directory? II also has a section of the book explaining like for like exchanges. Check it out.
> 
> I dont have a corporate II membership. What I do have is some quality resorts that trade into other quality resorts. However,I would never expect my mediocre Westgate week to get me into an Atlantis or DVC quality resort.
> 
> ...



Who said anyone was trying to trade Orlando Westgate into DVC? (The area block alone would prevent that).  As for Atlantis - we got it once but I'd never go back. Nice to visit but too expensive and the area (not the resort) is too depressing.  The majority of our requests prior to the Corporate priority were simple, in season 2 BR for 2 or 3 bedroom. II failed miserably.  Yet I have no problems getting Marriotts, in season, using the Corporate account AND get points (change) back.  You give up your whole week to get a week - usually smaller or off season from what you give up.  

Methinks you protest too much about "quality" and "like for like".  That isn't the issue. II simply doesn't deliver and all the excuses doesn't make it better.  But like those that used to ballyhoo SFX as able to deliver anything desired (they are good but no one delivers anything, anywhere) some see no evil, choose to ignore the hassles and if it works for you thats great.  But there are plenty of threads about II's poor service levels, irritating procedures, lack of deposits, etc.  They are a small player with a catchy slogan and little more. It may work for some but not for most who expect in season trades, similar unit sizes to what they give up and "quality" equal to what they put in. For those used to the massive selection and availability of RCI, II is a poor choice.


----------



## gmarine (Oct 23, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Who said anyone was trying to trade Orlando Westgate into DVC? (The area block alone would prevent that).  As for Atlantis - we got it once but I'd never go back. Nice to visit but too expensive and the area (not the resort) is too depressing.  The majority of our requests prior to the Corporate priority were simple, in season 2 BR for 2 or 3 bedroom. II failed miserably.  Yet I have no problems getting Marriotts, in season, using the Corporate account AND get points (change) back.  You give up your whole week to get a week - usually smaller or off season from what you give up.
> 
> Methinks you protest too much about "quality" and "like for like".  That isn't the issue. II simply doesn't deliver and all the excuses doesn't make it better.  But like those that used to ballyhoo SFX as able to deliver anything desired (they are good but no one delivers anything, anywhere) some see no evil, choose to ignore the hassles and if it works for you thats great.  But there are plenty of threads about II's poor service levels, irritating procedures, lack of deposits, etc.  They are a small player with a catchy slogan and little more. It may work for some but not for most who expect in season trades, similar unit sizes to what they give up and "quality" equal to what they put in. For those used to the massive selection and availability of RCI, II is a poor choice.



I was using Westgate as an example. Your listed resorts are in that category and I meant DVC quality, not actuallly trading Westgate for DVC. Expecting any of your resorts to trade for DVC is unreasonable, as would be me expecting my Westgate to do the same.

Search the threads and you will find many more complaints about RCI than II. But thats not the issue. You tried to trade mediocre resorts for high quality resorts and it didnt work. Because of that you come up with all this nonsense about corporate memberships etc being the only way to get good trades with II. You have nothing to back up your claims. Except your inability to get over on II by exchanging mediocre resorts for high quality ones.


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 23, 2007)

*Its the same resorts in all cases. The difference is II and how you use them*



gmarine said:


> Search the threads and you will find many more complaints about RCI than II. But thats not the issue. You tried to trade mediocre resorts for high quality resorts and it didnt work. Because of that you come up with all this nonsense about corporate memberships etc being the only way to get good trades with II. You have nothing to back up your claims. Except your inability to get over on II by exchanging mediocre resorts for high quality ones.



Is this a Carolinian clone thread? When was it ever stated that I was trading "mediocre" resorts (Gold Crown/5 Star is mediocre?  Someone better let RCI/II know!)  or that I was looking only for higher quality? Sure, I'd love to get something "better" if it's out there but my requests were for similar resorts, similar unit sizes and in similar seasons to what I was putting in.  II answered with off season, smaller units and some of the worst rated places I'd ever looked up. So much for "like for like" and the "quality" of II.  We were asking for trades that both RCI & SFX were able to deliver regularly in the same time period (1996-2002) that II failed to deliver even one equal exchange. In 2004 we started (reluctantly after the 96-02 experience) to dabble with the II Corporate account we were given (thats important - we pay nothing for it) with the exact same weeks we had given II as paying members and the results were good.  

So I speak only from experience and thats the results. Trying to claim I was somehow trying to put one over on II or not giving them a fair chance is the nonsense.  I didn't try to get more but didn't even get offered equal.  I didn't try to play games but got inundated with II pressure to take far less than we gave up.   Apparently you are willing to take whatever they spew out and like it. I just like a system that delivers with minimal effort and with reasonable trades. As a paying II member we didn't get that so we dropped them. As an RCI week member we became dissatisfied so we dropped them. RCI Points got us back into RCI and II Corporate access made them at least passable.  

The oft repeated mantra that "it's a quality issue" fails the sniff test when the deposits/resorts we're discussing are exactly the same in all systems.  If I was expecting my Wastegate to get me the Custom House you'd have a case. But the resorts you want to try to say are mediocre are the exact resorts that got me the Custom House using the Corporate account and change back that turned into a week in a low season in a 2 bedroom, 5 Star later that same year. So which owner (corporate or paying) gets the priority and which deposit got favored status?  I take it you've never had an II Corporate account based on points or you'd know what a big difference it makes.


----------



## bnoble (Oct 23, 2007)

John, my experience as a standalone owner in II is not as dismal as your own.  I own a summer 2BR Wisconsin week---the resort is not flashy, and while it is gold crown rated in RCI, I'd have to admit that that rating is generous compared to other rated resorts in RCI.  It was not 5-star in II. 

With the week, I can see all the DVC sightings, and any Marriotts that are out of the internal priority window.  I can't see the Four Seasons weeks, and I'm pretty sure that's a quality issue.  And, frankly, it's probably deserved.  The TUG ratings of my resort are in the mid-7s, which I believe is fair.  To be honest, I'm a little surprised that I can see the DVCs with it.

I'm also not sure about this:


> "it's a quality issue" fails the sniff test when the deposits/resorts we're discussing are exactly the same in all systems...the resorts you want to try to say are mediocre are the exact resorts that got me the Custom House using the Corporate account


The corporate accounts usually average trade power across all their deposits.  If you are depositing an over-deposited resort in your standalone account, it won't pull beans.  That same resort, turned into points in a corporate account, gets averaged across everywhere.  As I recall, you are talking about a Cypress Pointe week.  It's not surprising to me that Sunterra's average trade power in II is higher than even an excellent resort in Orlando.  It seems to me that II's "Orlando imbalance" is much worse than RCIs, and likewise with Williamsburg.

I won't dispute that the corporate accounts in II have benefits that I don't have as a standalone owner.  Then again, my corporate Wyndham account has very similar benefits in RCI---strong internal trading preference and exchanges with "change back."  Heck, I can even do request-first searches in RCI with my Wyndham account, which a standalone owner simply cannot do.

I guess, at the end of the day, I don't see II and RCI as differently as you do, based on the empirical trades I see.  As is often the case in timeshare, it's not as simple as "standalone doesn't work in II."


----------



## gmarine (Oct 23, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Is this a Carolinian clone thread? When was it ever stated that I was trading "mediocre" resorts (Gold Crown/5 Star is mediocre?  Someone better let RCI/II know!)  or that I was looking only for higher quality? Sure, I'd love to get something "better" if it's out there but my requests were for similar resorts, similar unit sizes and in similar seasons to what I was putting in.  II answered with off season, smaller units and some of the worst rated places I'd ever looked up. So much for "like for like" and the "quality" of II.  We were asking for trades that both RCI & SFX were able to deliver regularly in the same time period (1996-2002) that II failed to deliver even one equal exchange. In 2004 we started (reluctantly after the 96-02 experience) to dabble with the II Corporate account we were given (thats important - we pay nothing for it) with the exact same weeks we had given II as paying members and the results were good.
> 
> So I speak only from experience and thats the results. Trying to claim I was somehow trying to put one over on II or not giving them a fair chance is the nonsense.  I didn't try to get more but didn't even get offered equal.  I didn't try to play games but got inundated with II pressure to take far less than we gave up.   Apparently you are willing to take whatever they spew out and like it. I just like a system that delivers with minimal effort and with reasonable trades. As a paying II member we didn't get that so we dropped them. As an RCI week member we became dissatisfied so we dropped them. RCI Points got us back into RCI and II Corporate access made them at least passable.
> 
> The oft repeated mantra that "it's a quality issue" fails the sniff test when the deposits/resorts we're discussing are exactly the same in all systems.  If I was expecting my Wastegate to get me the Custom House you'd have a case. But the resorts you want to try to say are mediocre are the exact resorts that got me the Custom House using the Corporate account and change back that turned into a week in a low season in a 2 bedroom, 5 Star later that same year. So which owner (corporate or paying) gets the priority and which deposit got favored status?  I take it you've never had an II Corporate account based on points or you'd know what a big difference it makes.




I say you are trading mediocre resorts because that is what you have listed. They are nice resorts but they are not in the same class as DVC, Westin, Atlantis etc. 

Comparing II to RCI to SFX is a whole other topic. Each company uses different criteria to match exchanges. Because your weeks traded for something with one company has no bearing on how it will trade with the other.

My trades with II have been excellant. I deposit quality weeks and only accept quality in return. For 2008 I have two weeks at Atlantis in $900 a night two bedroom units and one week in a $700 a night two bedroom DVC unit. 

I understand you were not happy with II. However, saying that the only way to get high quality resorts is to have a corporate membership is simply not true. For a small sampling check the sightings board. You will see DVC, Four Seasons etc that were seen with regular II accounts and after on going requests were filled.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Oct 23, 2007)

*More Members = More Opportunities For Dissatisfaction ?*




gmarine said:


> Search the threads and you will find many more complaints about RCI than II.


Shux*,* I always thought that was because RCI is so much larger than I-I -- not because RCI was all that much better or worse than I-I. 

Who knew ? 

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


----------



## Lisa P (Oct 24, 2007)

Bruce W said:


> While I am sure this has been discussed in the past, we are considering changing from RCI to II ( our resort is dual affiliated)
> 
> Pros and cons vs each?


Bruce, much depends on what you have to trade and where you want to go.  

If you want to go to destinations that are represented by more resorts affiliated with II, then perhaps they'll work better for you.  Same with RCI.

If your owned resort is in a time and location that's rarely available in one of these exchange companies, it may trade better with them.

If your resort is a 5 Star, it's likely to do well in II.  Naturally a better week will be stronger than an offseason week.  However, II seems to give more of a trade power boost for resort "quality" than for season.  Standard, unbranded weeks (unless highest of prime time) do seem to trade poorly in II, IMO.  I think the average II exchanger may be a bit older and less tied to school schedules and more inclined to prefer awarded resorts (more drawn to II's marketing), driving up the demand for awarded resorts.

As a result of personal observation (admittedly limited), it's my opinion that "like-for-like" in II means in resort quality (or system contract, for branded resorts).

If your week is in prime time but it's not highly rated or awarded, then you may do better with RCI.  They seem to give a significant trade power boost for prime weeks, with less regard to resort quality, due to demand for popular school break weeks.  I think the average RCI exchanger is more likely to be tied to school schedules and they are more likely to favor certain weeks, accepting lesser resorts so long as they can get that "week at the beach" kind of thing.

So, as a result of personal observation (admittedly limited), it's my opinion that "like-for-like" in RCI means in level of seasonal demand (or system contract, for branded resorts).

Both companies try to call us and get us to expand our requested searches to include resorts, locations and unit sizes that are less desirable.  RCI usually has some other resort in mind.  II usually has a smaller unit and a nearby location in mind.  It's all about securing those exchange fees, for commission to the VCs.  Just say no.


----------



## tombo (Oct 25, 2007)

From what I have seen Lisa is right. RCI is more into prime weeks for prime weeks rather than quality of resort over whenever it is available. I own RCI weeks and II weeks,  I have been members of both, and for ME... RCI is best. The main reason I say that is because a really good week in a nice place with RCI with a decent trade is easier to get than a Marriott in off season if you aren't trading a Marriott with II. I hate to be in a trading company where everyone other than Marriott traders are second class owners. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but if you aren't trading Marriotts in II, RCI has many more resorts to trade in to and to trade with, and when you own is almost as important as where you own. I now buy mainly RCI resorts to trade or bank and as a result I am overloaded with RCI resorts.


----------



## CraigU (Oct 28, 2007)

Your understanding of the facts is quite good!



bnoble said:


> I'm also not sure about this:
> 
> The corporate accounts usually average trade power across all their deposits.  If you are depositing an over-deposited resort in your standalone account, it won't pull beans.  That same resort, turned into points in a corporate account, gets averaged across everywhere.  As I recall, you are talking about a Cypress Pointe week.  It's not surprising to me that Sunterra's average trade power in II is higher than even an excellent resort in Orlando.  It seems to me that II's "Orlando imbalance" is much worse than RCIs, and likewise with Williamsburg.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Oct 30, 2007)

bnoble said:


> I won't dispute that the corporate accounts in II have benefits that I don't have as a standalone owner.  Then again, my corporate Wyndham account has very similar benefits in RCI---strong internal trading preference and exchanges with "change back."  Heck, I can even do request-first searches in RCI with my Wyndham account, which a standalone owner simply cannot do.
> 
> 
> 
> > Given the incestous relationship between RCI and Wyndham,  this preference really smells.  I wish some of the consumer protection boys at one of the state AG offices would sink their teeth into this one.


----------



## Carolinian (Oct 30, 2007)

RCI's headlong move into rentals, as well as their giving their Points members unfair access to Weeks inventory, means they are on a long downhill slide.  I am letting my own membership in RCI run out, some years ago started reducing the deposits I gave them, and have now stopped giving them any deposits at all.

You will start to see less exchange availibility at RCI, and more weeks placed into their rental pool.  In Europe, this is already a serious problem.  See the thread on that subject going currently on www.timeshareforums.com  The system is badly screwed up when there is little availible in a destination like the UK for exchange but there is a treasure trove of good weeks at good resorts that RCI is offering for rent in the same timeframe.

II plays the rental game to a degree, too, but they have not gone hog wild like RCI.  And the reports of sightings of European exchange inventory these days at II are head and shoulders above that at Rental Condominiums International (RCI).  

One of the things that RCI has done that has seriously degraded its usefulness for its primary function, resort exchanges, is to offer its Points members all sorts of non-timeshare goods and services.  They pay for these by renting out prime inventory, from the Weeks as well as the Points side, reducing the prime inverntory availible for exchange.  They also almost certainly use it for cover to engage in even more rentals that would be justified for paying for that inventory.  Is an ''exchange company'' that engages in such tactics a good long or even medium term bet for decent exchanges?  Not on your life!

Fancy resorts are not what interests me.  Prime locations and times do, and these are rapidly disappearing at RCI.


----------



## taffy19 (Oct 30, 2007)

Post removed because everything I posted yesterday, changed again today. I am glad we bought for use and not for constantly checking what is available. Too much work and frustration.


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 30, 2007)

*Singling out RCI is silly*



Carolinian said:


> Given the incestous relationship between RCI and Wyndham,  this preference really smells.  I wish some of the consumer protection boys at one of the state AG offices would sink their teeth into this one.



Yet it's OK that II gives equally favored status or worse to Marriott, DVC (who also gets to tack on charges specifically prohibited in the II agreement), Sunterra and others.  The continuous dumping on RCI alone when the whole system of exchanges by the two well known players (only one is actually a major player) gets really old.  They both play favorites, they both bend the rules more and more as time goes on and they both don't offer good value for your membership dollars anymore IMO.   Picking on the big guy because they are an easy target when the minor player is as bad or worse makes zero sense. But what in timeshare exchange/pricing/sales makes sense anyway? Might as well just go with the flow and do whats best for you.


----------



## "Roger" (Oct 30, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> ... In Europe, this is already a serious problem.  See the thread on that subject going currently on www.timeshareforums.com  The system is badly screwed up when there is little availible in a destination like the UK for exchange but there is a treasure trove of good weeks at good resorts that RCI is offering for rent in the same timeframe....


Yes and no.  

While Lawren could only currently see one resort during the summer in England using a Weeks deposit, currently there about 24 resorts in England (not counting canal boats) available in Points for just August.  Also, given that the last published figure (getting pretty old) was that about 30% of Points transactions are used for things other than timeshares, it is not surprising to see rentals from the Points pool appearing to pay for these non-timeshare transactions.

At one time, Carolinian said the English would be too sophisticated to join Points.  As it turns out, a very sizable percentage of their resorts are in the Points program (and, members at other resorts can join Points regardless of whether their resort is a member - in accordance with RCI Europe rules).  Apparently this has cut into the *online* availabitity of units for Weeks members to obtain a unit in England.  As that trend continues, you would expect greater and greater percentages of Weeks trades to be through *ongoing *searches (since this will be the only way to obtain such a trade). There is no telling what availability is through that route by looking online. Perhaps decent, perhaps not so good.

I have no intention of turning this into a Points/Weeks debate and I will disappear from this thread.  I did think, however, that the timeshareforums thread was somewhat misleading in that it provides an incomplete picture of what is occurring without noting the parts of the picture that are missing.


----------



## Carolinian (Oct 30, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Yet it's OK that II gives equally favored status or worse to Marriott, DVC (who also gets to tack on charges specifically prohibited in the II agreement), Sunterra and others.  The continuous dumping on RCI alone when the whole system of exchanges by the two well known players (only one is actually a major player) gets really old.  They both play favorites, they both bend the rules more and more as time goes on and they both don't offer good value for your membership dollars anymore IMO.   Picking on the big guy because they are an easy target when the minor player is as bad or worse makes zero sense. But what in timeshare exchange/pricing/sales makes sense anyway? Might as well just go with the flow and do whats best for you.



The big difference, of course, is that while Wyndham and RCI are sister companies, none of the companies you mention concerning II have such a relationship with II.  The fact that they are sister companies is what makes this really incestuous with RCI.


----------



## Carolinian (Oct 30, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> While Lawren could only currently see one resort during the summer in England using a Weeks deposit, currently there about 24 resorts in England (not counting canal boats) available in Points for just August.  Also, given that the last published figure (getting pretty old) was that about 30% of Points transactions are used for things other than timeshares, it is not surprising to see rentals from the Points pool appearing to pay for these non-timeshare transactions.
> 
> ...



The point about RCI degrading its primary function of timeshare exchanging by having those secondary functions of non-timeshare goods and services was in my post above.  I first raised this issue of polluting the timeshare exchange system with non-timeshare goods and services almost immediately after RCI rolled out GPN (the early name of RCI Points). The fact that they are renting Weeks inventory to pay for Points Partner exchanges just makes it worse.  

I believe you are probably trying to apply my comment some time ago about France to England instead.

Weeks inventory is also degraded by the fraudulent RCI Points practice of allowing Points members to have access to Weeks inventory through the crossover trades, and often at a discount for the more desirable weeks, at that!  After the Timeshare Consumers Association in the UK is finished with their compensation claim against Sunterra's points club, they need to zero in on RCI Points for a compensation claim.  Indeed, maybe they should leave Sunterra alone and tackle the bigger problem at RCI Points.

What Weeks desperately needs is a firewall to get the parasitic Points system out of our pockets.

RCI has gotten their last deposit of my own European week due to their malpractices that are impacting my exchanging, and indeed their last deposit of any week from me.


----------



## bnoble (Oct 30, 2007)

> Given the incestous relationship between RCI and Wyndham, this preference really smells.


I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the FF/Wyn points RCI membership perks predate the acquisition.  Just as with II, I believe this is more about the negotating power Wyndham has when it controls approximately 800,000 potential captive-audience exchange "memberships", and similarly for Marriott.


----------



## guy33 (Nov 2, 2007)

*Interesting Topic and fun To Read*

I have experience with both organizations and they are very similar in most regards.  The bottom line is simple, high quality and demand will "ALWAYS" carry the day.  There has to be some incentive for high quality resort owners to play the game and the "dangling carrot" principle applies to the average regional resort owner who wants to constantly trade up.  Developers would not stay in business if they told 100% truth all the time.  I do not support dishonest business practices, but I try to be honest with myself.  I have "never" gotten a sub-quality resort on exchange; however, some are certainly better than others.  RCI and II mirror our country's tax structure in many ways.  "Peter pays for Paul and Paul pays for all."  The "so-called" mediocre owner pays the most dues and benefits the least from the exchange system.  The top tier owners rarely need exchanges and the bottom tier owners are primarily in it for the exchanges.  Many of the middle tiered owners are more likely to use their own resorts and alternative exchange systems.  Some of the more financially savvy members deliberately buy low to exchange high.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 2, 2007)

It is not ''high quality and demand''.  The key to exchanging is *supply* and demand.  High quality is merely one of the drivers of demand, and at that a lesser driver than location.  A timeshare is real estate, and like other real estate, the three most important factors on its desirability are ''location, location, and location.''  Maybe ''high quality'' comes 4th.




guy33 said:


> I have experience with both organizations and they are very similar in most regards.  The bottom line is simple, high quality and demand will "ALWAYS" carry the day.  There has to be some incentive for high quality resort owners to play the game and the "dangling carrot" principle applies to the average regional resort owner who wants to constantly trade up.  Developers would not stay in business if they told 100% truth all the time.  I do not support dishonest business practices, but I try to be honest with myself.  I have "never" gotten a sub-quality resort on exchange; however, some are certainly better than others.  RCI and II mirror our country's tax structure in many ways.  "Peter pays for Paul and Paul pays for all."  The "so-called" mediocre owner pays the most dues and benefits the least from the exchange system.  The top tier owners rarely need exchanges and the bottom tier owners are primarily in it for the exchanges.  Many of the middle tiered owners are more likely to use their own resorts and alternative exchange systems.  Some of the more financially savvy members deliberately buy low to exchange high.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 2, 2007)

*Saying it again and again can't make it true*



Carolinian said:


> It is not ''high quality and demand''.  The key to exchanging is *supply* and demand.  High quality is merely one of the drivers of demand, and at that a lesser driver than location.  A timeshare is real estate, and like other real estate, the three most important factors on its desirability are ''location, location, and location.''  Maybe ''high quality'' comes 4th.



And the *supply* of top *Quality* is far more limited than any given location and in any given location.  So a top quality unit in an in demand location will carry a higher value. You can deny it all you want but a so-so resort on the beach isn't necessarily going to trump the Gold Crown a block in land for many (perhaps even most) guests. Thats why a Marriott Hotel up the street can get a higher price than Mom's Rest on the beach.  Quality does count - big time.


----------



## barndweller (Nov 2, 2007)

*Quality Smality*

That quality thing is very subjective. What do I care if the place has granite counter tops but the staff knows diddly squat about customer service? Designer decor means nadda if the living room is so small I can change the channel on the TV from the sofa without a remote control. And personally, a jetted tub IN my bedroom doesn't do much for me.

Give me a clean condo with a killer view and a friendly staff and that's quality for me. I don't need a Marriott or a Hyatt to get what I consider quality.

My individual membership at II has gotten me great exchanges.


----------



## tombo (Nov 2, 2007)

I will take the Silver Crown on the beach in Panama City over the 5 star 20 minutes away from the beach at Marriott's LE. So does my friend who owns at LE. He bought a second week at my Silver Crown oceanfront to use after visiting me in my "lower quality" room and sitting on the balcony watching the ocean and listening to the waves.  He said I refuse to drive this far anymore to have to leave my resort to walk on the beach. He never stays at LE any more, he only trades it through II. And he only gets studios or 1 bed room units at other Marriotts when he trades his Marriott LE 2 bed room.

I have also been to Hilton Head at a non ocean front Marriott one time. I don't care how nice the resort is, if I can't sit on my private balcony and watch the ocean and listen to the waves, I don't want to stay there. Listening to people cuss as they make bad golf shots isn't my idea of relaxing balcony time. As I have said before, I have really nice furniture, a huge HDTV, tons of square footage, and all the amenities anyone could want at home. I go on vacation to the beach to stay on the beach, not somewhere that is a short drive or long stroll from the beach. I also don't want to be close to the mountains, near the vegas strip, or a short drive from whatever attraction I have travelled to vacation at. I want to vacation in a resort located directly onsite of the location I chose to visit for a week or a weekend.

To put "quality" as the top priority is wrong for most people. Remember the number one reason for the price of real estate is " LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION". Ask any realtor. I have a friend that bought a $7,000,000 home on the ocean in Naples Florida. The house across the street from him is about the same size and it sold for $3,000,000. Location, Location, Location! I seem to notice that in the newer  Marriotts like Aruba ,and the newer Hawaii locations, they all seem to be oceanfront, and they bring the most money retail, resale, and rental of any Marriotts.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 2, 2007)

tombo said:


> To put "quality" as the top priority is wrong for most people. Remember the number one reason for the price of real estate is " LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION". Ask any realtor. I have a friend that bought a $7,000,000 home on the ocean in Naples Florida. The house across the street from him is about the same size and it sold for $3,000,000. Location, Location, Location! I seem to notice that in the newer  Marriotts like Aruba ,and the newer Hawaii locations, they all seem to be oceanfront, and they bring the most money retail, resale, and rental of any Marriotts.



Except, as we all know now, timeshare isn't real estate. And of course the Marriott on the Ocean - just like the Wyndham Royal Vista or any other QUALITY resort on a beach is going to have the biggest demand and, most likely, a limited supply.  But take the Royal Vista as an example. The place next door sat half empty the past few years and now is closed because location alone can't make a poor resort a desirable one.  Basic location is a key and quality is a key.  To say one consistently trumps the other is false. They work closely together and are the very basis for demand.


----------



## tombo (Nov 2, 2007)

Your quote basically agreed with what I said, the biggest demand is for location.  You stated:

"the Wyndham Royal Vista or any other QUALITY resort ON A BEACH is going to have the biggest demand and, most likely, a limited supply."

 I never said any dump on the beach is worth staying at. I said less quality on the beach  (ex. Silver Crown)will trump a "higher quality" (5 star) resort far  removed from the beach.  It is ridiculous to say that any old standing structure on the beach will be high demand or a good trader. 

If you want to be honest however, even most old motels on the beach have high occupancy during peak seasons with a lot of young families and college kids. An old motel across the street from the beach or a couple of blocks away from the beach is usually low occupancy and usually has a seedy clientelle. In addition an old rundown or condemned motel or condo on the beach is still very valuable because it can be demolished and something nice can be built there because it still has that great LOCATION.


----------



## taffy19 (Nov 3, 2007)

barndweller said:


> That quality thing is very subjective. What do I care if the place has granite counter tops but the staff knows diddly squat about customer service? Designer decor means nadda if the living room is so small I can change the channel on the TV from the sofa without a remote control. And personally, a jetted tub IN my bedroom doesn't do much for me.
> 
> Give me a clean condo with a killer view and a friendly staff and that's quality for me. I don't need a Marriott or a Hyatt to get what I consider quality.
> 
> My individual membership at II has gotten me great exchanges.


I agree with your statement 100%.  A clean little condo and a friendly caring staff at a super location is what makes a vacation very special and having nice weather helps too.


----------



## guy33 (Nov 9, 2007)

*Not Exactly What I Meant*

IMHO, quality is not the furniture, size or decor, it is the entire situation.  Quality includes the time interval, location, size and any other factor that deals with desirability.  Location is a dictating factor to define quality, which in turn determines demand.  Who would care to stay in a plush resort in the middle of nowhere?  My use of the word quality is relative to circumstance.  Attempting to trade into a situation that is clearly superior to your personal ownership interval is usually unreasonable, regardless.  People are different and so are resorts and that's why RCI and II exist.  Why buy an interval at any location that does not meet your own quality standards?  The original question dealt with an individual who wants to know if RCI or II is better.  My answer was meant to discourage the comparison because very few resort intervals give a choice between the two.  That issue is usually a contracted issue before your purchase.  I stand firmly in the belief that neither is inherently better than the other.  Joining TUG and doing research about resorts are probably the best moves a person can make.  I think that both companies have strengths and weaknesses but the average vacationer can get what they need if they take advantage of the forums and deposit early enough to maximize trade opportunities.  I stand by my belief that most of the people that own beachfront and ocean view intervals during peak seasons are usually going to use their own rather than trade it.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 10, 2007)

*Location is number one amenity*

In timesharing location is the top amenity a resort has to offer.  It is also often the one that costs the resort the most.  A beachfront location, for example, is a more expensive amenity to the resort than all of the bells and whistles of a gold crown.  First, in resort development, the land land costs are going to be much higher for oceanfront property.  Second, costs to operate there are going to be higher, ranging from much higher insurance premiums, higher maintenance costs, higher taxes, etc.

Still what determines trade power is not any amentity including location.  It is supply and demand.  You can have the best location and the best bells and whislles, but if the area gets overbuilt with more supply out there than demand, it will rightfully be a dog trader.


----------



## dougp26364 (Nov 10, 2007)

Depsite John's insesent harping about I.I. not providing reasonable or fare trades unless you have a corporate account, I don't find it to be a reality inside I.I.

What I do find is that my Polo Towers units (before the DRI/Sunterra merger buyout) and my Grand Regency at Thousand Hills Golf Course (non-five star unit in Branson, MO) actually have done very well as far as exchanging. For that matter after converting our Polo Towers units to Sun Options (the Sunterra corporate account), I don't see any difference doing an online search as to one pulling better units over the other. 

IOW, the corporate account idea IMO using a unit deposited pre-corporate account and post-corporate account means nothing and has no merit. Using both methods doing an online search pulls the EXACT same units. 

As to I.I. offering one bedroom units. It's pretty easy to understand as far a I'm concerned. I have several units but, up until recently I didn't have enough units to cover ever vacation I wanted to take every year. So I LOCKED THEM OUT. By locking them out it denies I.I. being able to exchange my two bedroom unit. Instead they have a lot of one bedroom and studio units for exchange. 

I've noticed with certain resorts, Westin Kierland for example, that two bedroom unit lock-out into two seperate one bedroom units. Anyone that's been to any sales presentation knows the TS salesmans angle on this. Buy one unit and get two exchange vacations in two full one bedroom units. I susspect many units in resorts that now LO into two seperate one bedoom unit will have people do exactly that.

If there's not a two bedroom unit out there, would you want I.I. not to let you know that at least a one bedroom unit is available? For that matter are you telling me that RCI doesn't do exactly that same thing? Offer inferior units you didn't specify, dates that don't match or smaller units than what you asked for? If so then you're telling stories. Every time I've exchanged with RCI (and it's only been a few times) they've been every bit as bad at suggesting a resort I didn't want, date I didn't request or taking a smaller unit than what I requested.

As to the differences with RCI and I.I. it boils down to two things for me. 

*1.* I.I. allows search first before giving them your week. No guess work here. You get to see what I.I. will give you before you make the decision to give them your week. If they don't come up with a decent exchange you don't give them your unit and lose your rights to that unit. RCI just takes your unit and you have to wait and hope you get what you want.

*2.* RCI offers a point system where I.I. is a weeks only exchange company (unless you have a corporate account that utilizes points like Sunterra). In a week for week exchange there is waste if you can't or don't LO your unit. I made the mistake last year of depositing my full two bedroom Suites at Polo Towers unit (I didn't need the studio to exchange or use). Thus because I wanted to go to Scottsdale, AZ and I wanted to trade into Westin Kierland, I ended up trading down in size. I found out later that most at that resort LO and only exchange one bedroom unit and that my one bedroom portion of my Suites week would have been sufficient to pull a one bedroom at the Westin. I could have had two bedrooms at some of the other resorts but, the Marriott and the Westin resorts both had only one bedroom units deposited. 

Now that I have a corporate account the uses points as an exchange medium within I.I., I can see the exact same units at the Westin and Marriott but, I only have to spend the points required for the one bedroom unit and save the remaining points for other uses (additional vacations, carry forward to next year, defer club dues or MF's or convert to airline miles/airline tickets et...). Having seen the power of points based exchanging I can see where, if I was going to be an RCI member their points program might be the strongest way to go. Of course there can be abuses with points based exchanging but, that's an entirely different thread all together. 

To me those are the two main differences between the exchange companies. I prefer I.I. but, in large part that's because I'm familier with them, know how to maximize my usage in their system and have recieved what I consider fare exchanges through them every time I've requested an exchange.

RCI, on the other hand, continues to announce new avenues for renting timeshare units to the general public and seems to co-mingle weeks program units into the points based exchange program (pints weeks rading the weeks deposits). I also keep seeing to many complaints about RCI pop up on these forums from different members. With I.I. it's generally just a couple and John in particular.


----------



## irish (Nov 10, 2007)

having been a member of both(1 of my resorts allows dual membership) i let my RCI membership go and stayed with II. the reason was simple. II offers "REQUEST FIRST" which simply means they don't get my week for use unless/until they fulfill my request. that's important to me. recently i purchased at a resort that only uses RCI as the exchange company. i bought this unit  to occupy not to trade so i won't join RCI again. if plans to occupy change, i will either rent or look into one of the independants. after reading all the negative posts on these forums about RCI and the problems members are having getting a trade, RCI is definitely not in my future.  JMO


----------



## dougp26364 (Nov 10, 2007)

Forgot one other little difference. I.I.'s exchange fee's are lower than RCI's exchange fee's.


----------



## Transit (Nov 10, 2007)

Quality is as much a factor in trade as location.There are many owners on these boards that will not trade a high end unit for a washed out beach location. They prefer to opt out of time sharing at a location where there are no "quality" resorts and rent a home or stay in a hotel. A recent poll here on tug shows most Marriott owners stay within the Marriott system. I've read plenty of post from owners of high end units that  do not deposit their units to II or Rci simply because the will not take a unit at any location that doesn't live up to the quality standards of their home resort. Many of these owners buy units at lesser resort just for trading. High cost is a factor in this as many of these units are extreamly expensive creating a situation where the owners cannot get and equal trade so they opt to rent ,direct exchange or use it themselves.The II big book of dreams has a lot of nice places that get very little deposits from owners. Even the owners who are nonchalant in booking and trading their "quality" units are directed toward what they trade to by quality filters. As far II vs RCI the choice was made for me by Starwood.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 10, 2007)

Transit said:


> Quality is as much a factor in trade as location.There are many owners on these boards that will not trade a high end unit for a washed out beach location. They prefer to opt out of time sharing at a location where there are no "quality" resorts and rent a home or stay in a hotel. A recent poll here on tug shows most Marriott owners stay within the Marriott system. I've read plenty of post from owners of high end units that  do not deposit their units to II or Rci simply because the will not take a unit at any location that doesn't live up to the quality standards of their home resort. Many of these owners buy units at lesser resort just for trading. High cost is a factor in this as many of these units are extreamly expensive creating a situation where the owners cannot get and equal trade so they opt to rent ,direct exchange or use it themselves.The II big book of dreams has a lot of nice places that get very little deposits from owners. Even the owners who are nonchalant in booking and trading their "quality" units are directed toward what they trade to by quality filters. As far II vs RCI the choice was made for me by Starwood.



In every survey that has been done on this and other timeshare sites on location vs ''quality'', location has won hands down as to the main driver in demand.   And it is supply vs. demand that determines what is a fair trade.
A converted Motel 6 in central London or NYC would have a much better supply / demand curve than the most luxurious resort in some overbuilt place like Orlando or the Canary Islands.  Location and quality are merely drivers of demand, not factors in and of themselves.

In my area, the real world of the timeshare rental markets show that location is a major driver or demand and quality only a secondary one.  The highest demand resort on the OBX is Outer Banks Beach Club I and II, oceanfront AND GC/SC (so they have both location and quality).  BY far the lowest demand, on the other hand, is Barrier Island Station - Kitty Hawk, the newest Gold Crown in the area and with the most bells and whistles but so far from the beach that you have to drive.  Owners there price their rentals $100 less than the oceanfront standard resorts  but still don't get rentals unless all of the oceanfront resorts are already rented.  Curiously their sister resort, Barrier Island Station - DUck, which has been let run down by the developer-management but is still oceanfront, has now become the second highest demand resort on the OBX. Location clearly trumps quality in the OBX t/s rental market.  Quality without location leaves a resort sucking air as to demand.


----------



## Phill12 (Nov 10, 2007)

barndweller said:


> That quality thing is very subjective. What do I care if the place has granite counter tops but the staff knows diddly squat about customer service? Designer decor means nadda if the living room is so small I can change the channel on the TV from the sofa without a remote control. And personally, a jetted tub IN my bedroom doesn't do much for me.
> 
> Give me a clean condo with a killer view and a friendly staff and that's quality for me. I don't need a Marriott or a Hyatt to get what I consider quality.
> 
> My individual membership at II has gotten me great exchanges.




I also agree that II is much better for many reasons even though II has problems too.

 We left Rci years ago because of same complaints you hear from people now.

 Years ago II and Rci belonging to some of the same resorts and II owners would get better units inside a resort. Now with owner rental and resort rental II doesn't do any better than Rci in most cases.

 My number one and two reasons for II is service and Request First.

 We wouldn't give up our July 4th week unless we get what we want.

 This year II dragging their feet because they say owners in some locations don't deposit until after first of the year so our Request First Jan 29,2007 was pulled this month and we gave them a one bedroom at our same resort(Request First )of coarse. Its a lock-off but we had the resort rent the studio for ski season 2008.

 II does call about once a month and offer something less than what you want but at least they call. Rci we ran out of time two years in a row because they came up with a studio for our three bedroom that had almost two years of being deposited in their system and take it or lose and we lost it. We left for II at that point and never looked back. 

 We had three friends this last few years make the change to II also for same reasons.

 I would like to see one change but probably not going to happen.

 I own a lock-off and a true two bedroom at our resort. I would like to see II not take part of lock-off units at all for exchange. So many families going on vacation and need two bedrooms,sleeps six and just can not get one no matter what they trade.

 If its a two bedroom unit lock-off or true two bedroom that is the way it gets deposted into the exchange system.

 If owner wants to split it then resort can rent out one of the units and owner must use other unit. No exchanging to make side money like we are doing this year.

 All the sales pitchs now show lock-off and tell people how they can trade and get two weeks or eoy and get every year vacations by splitting the unit.

 I feel this is hurting exchanges for most families of more than two people. 

 If your a smaller group then buy a one bedroom if its for exchanging and larger unit for larger family.

 Owners that try and make money wouldn't like this but we need to get back to what timesharing was all about, EXCHANGING OR USING!


----------



## Transit (Nov 10, 2007)

Carolinian, We are talking trades here, II vs RCI. What your veiw is on the beach vs "overbuilt" areas are not the consideration in this post. Times have changed since the internet, price and quality come into play.People are not thowing just any unit to II or rci to exchange.I just saw a post about a new Marriott with a 4th of July week costing $150,000 .It will probably be listed in the exchange book but your Obx week most likely will never see it or get a trade for it. If a unit like that does get deposited a Marriott Grand Vista owner in "Overbuilt Orlando"  has a much better chance of ever seeing a trade to that unit or any unit that passes II's quality filter. I myself prefer a beach vacation but I would drive a little to stay in a great resort than be on the beach in a mediocre resort. Everyone travels in different circles. I read the posts on the Hotel based timeshares all the time this includes Marriott,Starwood,Hyatt,Hilton all good systems with some very nice locations .Many simply do not deposit for open exchange. People who do deposit seek quailty and location. Location is not a lone factor in trades anymore there are to many options.You living in the past when it comes to timesharing.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 10, 2007)

*Just find what works for you*



Transit said:


> Carolinian, We are talking trades here, II vs RCI. What your veiw is on the beach vs "overbuilt" areas are not the consideration in this post. Times have changed since the internet, price and quality come into play.People are not thowing just any unit to II or rci to exchange.I just saw a post about a new Marriott with a 4th of July week costing $150,000 .It will probably be listed in the exchange book but your Obx week most likely will never see it or get a trade for it. If a unit like that does get deposited a Marriott Grand Vista owner in "Overbuilt Orlando"  has a much better chance of ever seeing a trade to that unit or any unit that passes II's quality filter. I myself prefer a beach vacation but I would drive a little to stay in a great resort than be on the beach in a mediocre resort. Everyone travels in different circles. I read the posts on the Hotel based timeshares all the time this includes Marriott,Starwood,Hyatt,Hilton all good systems with some very nice locations .Many simply do not deposit for open exchange. People who do deposit seek quailty and location. Location is not a lone factor in trades anymore there are to many options.You living in the past when it comes to timesharing.



You have the "new" timeshare paradigm down perfectly.  The expectations and options have changed since the 80's and 90's.  

This is a "RCI/II - which is best?" thread but even under that small window there are so many different methods to use time within those groups that no one answer fits.    

I like RCI, always have had far better results with them than II. But I gave up my RCI membership in 1996. I didn't need it as my Wyndham gets me access as a full member AND gives me "request first" which no other RCI groups I know of get.  So while RCI still worked for me I had access that was different than most. Then we joined RCI Points which again changed how we use RCI and again improved the results. We dropped II in 2002 after years of frustration with unit sizes, times, quality, etc. that just didn't equal what we got with RCI. Yes, we did find request first to be better than place and hope but it still resulted in much less satisfactory trades than RCI regularly gave us. 

Then we got the Corporate II membership through Sunterra. Like the Wyndham one it offers features we couldn't get as a mere paying member of II.  It made II better - we actually use it some now - but it's still our last choice after Wyndham Points, Club Sunterra Points, RCI Points, SFX and RCI weeks. And all of our time now is based in some points group or another. The best thing now would be if those points groups formed a direct exchange bypassing both II & RCI and offering a group of resorts almost as large as the old RCI had in it's heyday.  

I don't care about availability charts for Europe or demand curves for East vs South. We want QUALITY resorts in the areas we want to visit, in peak times in unit sizes we desire. The order listed above for the various sources works best for us.  Others may have different needs and the order of success of the various sources of timeshare inventory would change.  Thats why they all exist.  

The real key, and you touch on it, is that the days of owners simply tossing everything into RCI with the idea of getting as good or better out in exchange or the much smaller group that used II, usually with some type of priority, are gone. That best quality (with all meanings of the word included - not just a physical location or type of fit and finish) and most desirable inventory times are getting used (the BEST value for owners) or carefully traded/rented for maximized value. Those who think they can still buy any old week and trade it for those types of better resorts/times/locations are not going to be satisfied. 

Those who look at the new world of timesharing as it now exists can easily find the right model of ownership and exchange to fit what they want to get out of it.  For some that will be a mini or weeks group like Marriott, others will find an open points plan like RCI will do it, some will still want a week they really enjoy and can return to over and over and a few will still find simple one week for one week trades still work for them.  But none will find the nearly one stop shop RCI once was for easy trades to nearly any location as that ceased to exist many years ago if it ever even actually did exist. Mostly that view of the past seems to be a rose colored view that few actually saw.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 10, 2007)

Transit said:


> Carolinian, We are talking trades here, II vs RCI. What your veiw is on the beach vs "overbuilt" areas are not the consideration in this post. Times have changed since the internet, price and quality come into play.People are not thowing just any unit to II or rci to exchange.I just saw a post about a new Marriott with a 4th of July week costing $150,000 .It will probably be listed in the exchange book but your Obx week most likely will never see it or get a trade for it. If a unit like that does get deposited a Marriott Grand Vista owner in "Overbuilt Orlando"  has a much better chance of ever seeing a trade to that unit or any unit that passes II's quality filter. I myself prefer a beach vacation but I would drive a little to stay in a great resort than be on the beach in a mediocre resort. Everyone travels in different circles. I read the posts on the Hotel based timeshares all the time this includes Marriott,Starwood,Hyatt,Hilton all good systems with some very nice locations .Many simply do not deposit for open exchange. People who do deposit seek quailty and location. Location is not a lone factor in trades anymore there are to many options.You living in the past when it comes to timesharing.



Again, there are only two real factors . . .SUPPLY and DEMAND.  Location and quality are merely drivers of one of those factors, demand.  Yes, there probably are some people who salivate over a Marriott, no matter where it is located, but they are the distinct minority.  Location is the key for most folks.

And many who push this ''quality'' issue seem to want to forget the other big factor - SUPPLY.  Oversupply in overbuilt areas is why standard blue weeks from most anywhere can easily trade into gold crowns in overbuilt places like Orlando.  That is NOT a trade up as some Orlando owners want to believe, it is an equal trade between weeks with similar supply/demand curves.


----------



## barndweller (Nov 10, 2007)

As a newcomer to timeshare exchanging (only 4 years) I have found that II offers me excellent opportunity for quality exchanges in locations I desire.

 The fact that II offers opportunities to exchange into new high quality resorts that developers make available to II (with the hope of selling to new prospects I assume ) have netted me some great exchanges using non-branded resorts for my exchanges. I went to Rancho Manana, a really top notch resort, when no one at TUG had even heard of it. There were no reviews & in fact it wasn't even listed in the review section. I have an exchange next year into a 4 bedroom unit at Lighthouse Key in Orlando that I got using a 1 bedroom Sheraton unit in exchange. There are no reviews but my research tells me I will most likely be very happy. I assume RCI also gets these developer deposits but I have a hunch they are used to generate income through rental sites rather than being used as exchange inventory. For this reason I choose to stick with II. I use the independents as well, but that is not the OP's question. 

Some of you old timers need to take your blinders off & expand your horizons. There are plenty of really high quality resorts in excellent locations available. They just might not be the same places you have come to know & love. I think some of you are stuck in a rut. The idea of exchanging for me is to try something new & go to places I haven't been before. If I want to return over & over again to the same place because I love it, then the best strategy is, as it always has been, to buy there. Look outside the box, people. Branded resorts like Marriott, et.al. have people brainwashed to think nothing else will do! 

There's plenty of good stuff out there for the owner of an old fashioned week for week timeshare if they look beyond the hotel branded stuff that they THINK is the only worthy exchange.


----------



## Dave*H (Nov 10, 2007)

Transit said:


> ... I myself prefer a beach vacation but I would drive a little to stay in a great resort than be on the beach in a mediocre resort. ...


It is my impression that a majority of tuggers agree with you, but I am not one who feels that way.  The most important factors to me are time and location.  I would much rather be on the beach where the family can go back and forth to the beach as they wish than have to negotiate departure and return times among everyone.  Same with skiing.  While walk-in, walk-out is not that big a deal, having access to a shuttle so that everyone can come and go as they please, is very important.  As for quality, I have a minimum standard I won't go below, but every timeshare I have seen is above that standard.  If I was renting, I would pay a little extra for the nicer place, but rarely as much extra as the rent price seems to demand.  OTOH, people pay what I consider ridiculous prices for high end lodging which leads me to believe that I am in the minority.


----------



## barndweller (Nov 10, 2007)

Here's another thing that I don't understand. What is the big deal about trying both for a year? If one has just spent umty ump thousand dollars on a timeshare what is the big deal about spending $90 to join an exchange company to try it out? On the flip side, if you have bought a bargain deal on ebay for pennies (figuratively) why quibble about another 90 bucks spent trying an exchange company for a year? 

That is what I did. My 2 year fee paid to RCI taught me that it was a total waste of time & energy compared to II. Never found an exchange where & when I wanted and never even talked to a human in 2 years. Not even a call trying to get me to renew!! My membership fees paid to SFX & HTSE have enabled me to make some exchanges I would never have gotten through RCI or II. My free membership at TPI is my favorite so far.


----------



## Transit (Nov 10, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Again, there are only two real factors . . .SUPPLY and DEMAND.  Location and quality are merely drivers of one of those factors, demand.  Yes, there probably are some people who salivate over a Marriott, no matter where it is located, but they are the distinct minority.  Location is the key for most folks.
> 
> And many who push this ''quality'' issue seem to want to forget the other big factor - SUPPLY.  Oversupply in overbuilt areas is why standard blue weeks from most anywhere can easily trade into gold crowns in overbuilt places like Orlando.  That is NOT a trade up as some Orlando owners want to believe, it is an equal trade between weeks with similar supply/demand curves.


       Supply and demand are not the only driving factors. Many people will not deposit to II or RCI to take a lesser quality unit even in a high demand location they will seek other avenues such as home rentals and hotels and preserve their TS unit to trade for something they consider of equal value. Orlando must have 300 Timeshares there but most people try to trade to those top 25 or so quality resorts they like the most.They will be blue with their blue week trying to get a top quality resort in Orlando during busy seasons. Another example of quality vs location is Las Vegas there are some resorts right on the strip I always see available whereas the Marriott  (A block off the strip) is only available off peak.


----------



## Transit (Nov 10, 2007)

Dave_H said:


> It is my impression that a majority of tuggers agree with you, but I am not one who feels that way.  The most important factors to me are time and location.  I would much rather be on the beach where the family can go back and forth to the beach as they wish than have to negotiate departure and return times among everyone.  Same with skiing.  While walk-in, walk-out is not that big a deal, having access to a shuttle so that everyone can come and go as they please, is very important.  As for quality, I have a minimum standard I won't go below, but every timeshare I have seen is above that standard.  If I was renting, I would pay a little extra for the nicer place, but rarely as much extra as the rent price seems to demand.  OTOH, people pay what I consider ridiculous prices for high end lodging which leads me to believe that I am in the minority.


From the posts i've read most tuggers not only want to be on the beach they want ocean front ocean veiw minimum and they want the best quality they can trade for. I'm not familiar with ski resorts but the ski in ski out resorts or a lift on property to the slopes sound like a great way to go.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 10, 2007)

Transit said:


> From the posts i've read most tuggers not only want to be on the beach they want ocean front ocean veiw minimum and they want the best quality they can trade for. I'm not familiar with ski resorts but the ski in ski out resorts or a lift on property to the slopes sound like a great way to go.



In every specific ''location vs. quality'' thread here and at the other various t/s forums, those who primarily value location have always been the distinct majority.

The actual experience of the t/s rental market shows that quality counts but only as a secondary driver.  Among beachfront resorts, the gold crown is out front.  But quality without location puts the other gold crown very much at the back of the pack.

And it really doesn't matter which coast.  Tuggers familiar with So Cal have always advised to buy a beachfront standard resort there over a GC off the beach as the former had better trading power (e.g. more demand). 

And if is the same with urban timeshares.  In London, the older and lower ranked Allen House which is bang in central London beats the pants off of Odessa Wharf, a Gold Crown way out in the docklands.


----------



## Transit (Nov 11, 2007)

​


Carolinian said:


> In every specific ''location vs. quality'' thread here and at the other various t/s forums, those who primarily value location have always been the distinct majority.
> 
> The actual experience of the t/s rental market shows that quality counts but only as a secondary driver.  Among beachfront resorts, the gold crown is out front.  But quality without location puts the other gold crown very much at the back of the pack.
> 
> ...



I'm not disagreeing with these past facts but with newer,better quality more expensive and high maintanance fees resorts being built. The way trades are
done at exchange companies like II and rci are changing fast with a lot having to do with cost factors. These units are not being deposited as swiftly as in the past. I'm talking about high end resorts that are in high
 demand areas and directly on the beach competing with the older resorts for trades .This is happening right now with Marriott going in on Marco Island Hyatt on Siesta key,and a few big resorts in Socal. If a few large brand mega resorts ever opened on the outerbanks how would the existing resorts compete for trades in RCI OR II. Blue weeks would become invisable weeks and the best summer weeks would be sought after by those who couldn't get into the better resorts. Younger people who now are just getting into timesharing are also interested in entertainment ,activities and all the amenities the big brands have to offer.This is however speculation and just my veiw of how I see things going I don't have numbers and facts because exchange companies keep everthing secret but I believe deposits for the higher end  resorts are a lot lower than the older non branded ones .Wiith the big resorts opening at record pace the landscape and the exchanging will be very different in the next few years.youv'e seen what happened with points . You ain't seen nothing yet!!!


----------



## Kauai Kid (Nov 11, 2007)

We've had II for 25 years and been satisfied with all exchanges except one to Atlantic City, NJ.

Got another week this year at Alii Kai Resort on Kauai with a free one year membership in RCI.   Will be interesting to compare the two.  I've all ready gotten a 6 pm dinner time call from RCI with the "special today only" talk to extend to a three year membership.  Don't companies realize how irritating these calls are for their customers? :annoyed: 

Sterling


----------



## frenchieinme (Nov 11, 2007)

*Not in my case...*



BevL said:


> I prefer RCI because I always plan two years out.  Interval just doesn't seem to get the inventory until a year or less out.
> 
> .



This may be true but I just wanted to interject here I exchanged 5 of my 2008 weeks this past September for 5 available 2009 weeks thru II.  That was defintiely more than 1 year in advance.

A caveat here though, I would think being able to exchange 2 years or so in advance is quite an iffy situation as these deposits have to be put into the pool by somebody and most people tend to wait till the last possible moment to deposit.  If everybody waited till the last possible moment to exchange then RCI, II and other exchange companies would cease to be effective exchange tools IMHO.

frenchieinme


----------



## bnoble (Nov 11, 2007)

RCI's must-deposit-to-search model tends to encourage earlier owner deposits than does II's can-search-before-deposit model.  Just by watching the sightings boards, RCI'S "prime stuff" tends to show up earlier than II's does.  There are of course exceptions, but that seems to be the general rule.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 11, 2007)

High maintenance fees can reflect mismanagement as much as they can ''quality''.  They are simply not a real factor in exchange value.  In international timeshare, they can also reflect the currency exchange market which again is completely irrelevent to trade power.  As the dollar sinks, more and more overseas resorts are going to have higher m/f's than US resorts.  Does this mean they should, ipso facto, have better trade power?  I think NOT!

As to high price, someone who got suckered into paying developer price is always going to pay a LOT more than a savvy resale buyer of the very same week at the very same resort.  Indeed the savvy resale buyer may get a better price than a sucker buying a blue week from the developer.  Saying that the sucker should get better trade value because he paid more just doesn't make sense.

Yes, there are resorts that exude class, and REAL quality, but these are NOT the glitz factor resorts you speak of.  They are resorts like Schloss Grubhof, an Austrian resort in a gorgeous restored 14th century castle. Its not a ''mega resort'' and its not a gold crown, but  no Marriott or Hilton will ever come close to that standard.  They just don't build them like that anymore!
There is a French chateau and a few English manor house resorts in that ballpark, but no ''glitz'' mega-resort.

As to some mega resort getting built on the OBX, I doubt it highly.  Fairfield looked for a location, mostly inland since land availibility and price precluded the beach for them, but were not able to find anything even inland.

I don't mind a mega-resort if it is where I want to go, but I have yet to find one I have ever put in a search for.  When I decided to go to HHI, I put in a request with DAE, and they offered me a week at the Disney resort.  I took at look at its location, far from the beach, and turned it down.  RCI then came up with a standard resort that was at least in walking distance of the beach and I grabbed it.  If either had produced a week at a resort bang on the beach, I would have picked it, gold crown or no crown.

As to owning a gold crown, I would be very disinclined to do so for exchange purposes, since it would run afoul of the extremely aggravating RCI downward quality filter that might block out resorts in areas I wanted to go to.

Yes there will always be some who would prefer to luxuriate in a Great Dismal Swamp Marriott than be steps from the beach or in the very center of an interesting city in a perfectly decent resort.







Transit said:


> ​
> I'm not disagreeing with these past facts but with newer,better quality more expensive and high maintanance fees resorts being built. The way trades are
> done at exchange companies like II and rci are changing fast with a lot having to do with cost factors. These units are not being deposited as swiftly as in the past. I'm talking about high end resorts that are in high
> demand areas and directly on the beach competing with the older resorts for trades .This is happening right now with Marriott going in on Marco Island Hyatt on Siesta key,and a few big resorts in Socal. If a few large brand mega resorts ever opened on the outerbanks how would the existing resorts compete for trades in RCI OR II. Blue weeks would become invisable weeks and the best summer weeks would be sought after by those who couldn't get into the better resorts. Younger people who now are just getting into timesharing are also interested in entertainment ,activities and all the amenities the big brands have to offer.This is however speculation and just my veiw of how I see things going I don't have numbers and facts because exchange companies keep everthing secret but I believe deposits for the higher end  resorts are a lot lower than the older non branded ones .Wiith the big resorts opening at record pace the landscape and the exchanging will be very different in the next few years.youv'e seen what happened with points . You ain't seen nothing yet!!!


----------



## Transit (Nov 11, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> As to owning a gold crown, I would be very disinclined to do so for exchange purposes, since it would run afoul of the extremely aggravating RCI downward quality filter that might block out resorts in areas I wanted to go to.


Opening another can of worms ...II rumors are that in the near future they will do away with the 5star designation this will effect trade in that all exchangers will have to guide them is reveiws and brand recognition.Brand recognition is a powerfull consumer draw.I certanly agree that the filters are limiting although ment to be helpfull I would rather have the choice.I also wanted to mention that SFX one of the more successfull 3rd party exchange companies based their exchanges on resorts being of qualiity designation.......  _SFX Preferred Resorts is a specialty Boutique exchange service. SFX is the only exchange company that specializes in both Crown and 5 Star rated timeshare resorts, creating a resort network of the highest consistency of quality in the most sought after locations. SFX members understand the importance of quality. _ Weather or not you believe  quaility to be a big factor in affecting trades within II and RCi  SFX is basing it's whole game plan on it.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 11, 2007)

*Its repeated over and over but its still wrong. Location isn't everything*



Transit said:


> Opening another can of worms ...II rumors are that in the near future they will do away with the 5star designation this will effect trade in that all exchangers will have to guide them is reveiws and brand recognition.Brand recognition is a powerfull consumer draw.I certanly agree that the filters are limiting although ment to be helpfull I would rather have the choice.I also wanted to mention that SFX one of the more successfull 3rd party exchange companies based their exchanges on resorts being of qualiity designation.......  _SFX Preferred Resorts is a specialty Boutique exchange service. SFX is the only exchange company that specializes in both Crown and 5 Star rated timeshare resorts, creating a resort network of the highest consistency of quality in the most sought after locations. SFX members understand the importance of quality. _ Weather or not you believe  quaility to be a big factor in affecting trades within II and RCi  SFX is basing it's whole game plan on it.



II is killing 5* (Thank heavens - it was THE most meaningless designation in all of timeshare) so that is not rumor but fact.  

As for quality those who try to downplay it usually own in areas that only offer unranked, usually older timeshares.  Of course they don't want quality to play the big role it does. They also try to act like one thing - location, resort ranking, unit size or something - is always the critical thing for every exchange.  Nonsense of course.  

In an area such as Orlando where some of the largest and fanciest resorts exist it becomes a critical part of most peoples choice exactly which of the many great resorts they can get or if they have to settle for a converted motel (but still with the "location"). The expectation there is far higher than most areas for quality and unit size.   But in a seasonal area such as a beach town the best resort may not even be close to that Orlando motel conversion in quality but it is taken in season- and even is in demand - as the location does matter. 

But once that in-season time, usually extremely limited, ends the value of that so-so at best resort really drops as the location isn't a draw anymore once the weather turns sour.  That why saying a deposit from those areas, while certainly limited vs the great number available in an area such as Orlando, gains "value" equal to those much nicer and better weathered (is that a word?) resorts is also nonsense.  It is a trade up in every sense of the word. 

It would take a definition equal to "fixed" being more flexible than "float" to say undesirable units - no matter how few of them there may be - somehow are equal to units in great demand - even if there are plenty of them - simply because there are only a few compared to many. I can see where at one time RCI/II thought it better to not waste those dogs and collect the fee for the trade thus giving value to time that really had none. But now there are other outlets (like it or not) for the better times/units that bring in more money (rentals) for RCI/II than the dog for good unit trade can.   It helps enforce the like for like nature of trades (good) which has always been a mantra of the exchange co's - but the ultimate answer is the change to points where the true amount of value for both sides can be extracted in a known and reasonable transaction rather than the tortured and inefficient attempts to make wildly unequal weeks equal each other in trade.


----------



## Transit (Nov 11, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> but the ultimate answer is the change to points where the true amount of value for both sides can be extracted in a known and reasonable transaction rather than the tortured and inefficient attempts to make wildly unequal weeks equal each other in trade.



But then there would be no confusion and chaos. How would the exchange companies steal good weeks to rent out ?


----------



## Transit (Nov 11, 2007)

barndweller said:


> Here's another thing that I don't understand. What is the big deal about trying both for a year?  QUOTE]
> Bruce,
> This is the best advise this thread has to offer , Try both and see which you can use to you advantage


----------



## JT62 (Nov 11, 2007)

I've been a member of RCI since 1999 or 2000 (so, not a long time).

I have continued with RCI for 2 basic reasons......

the first is that I consistently trade a 1 bedroom for 2 or 3 bedrooms. I called II about depositing my dual affiliated resorts, and was told I could only trade like for like.

The other reason I have stayed with RCI is that I have always gotten the trades I have requested and have been happy with the locations once I was there. 

Now, someone here could rightfully tell me that most of my exchanges were "easy", and I don't deny that. I could also be told that if I were trying to get Europe, or a ski week, and I didn't, I'd feel differently, and I'm sure that's true. 

But, bottom line is that I have always gotten what I requested, and it turned out (once I was there) that I was happy with the exchange. And in my mind, that's what it's all about

JT


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 12, 2007)

What those who own in overbuilt areas always seem to try to avoid is that there are really only two basic factors in trade value:
1) *supply*
2) *demand*
Everything else is secondary, including location and ''quality''.  They are merely drivers of demand.  And the real world clearly shows that the most important of those two drivers is location, the most important single amenity that a resort has to offer.

In the overbuilt areas, what kills them is the supply side.  Yes, there is often good demand for an area like the Canary Islands or Orlando, but there even more supply.  It is that excess of supply that kills their supply/demand curve and makes it resemble a blue week in the northeast.  Yes, there might be demand factors that make some resorts better than others, such as being particularly close to the mouse or having a lot of bells and whisles or in the case of the Canary Islands, being on a beach.

Those in overbuilt areas do seem to love the rigged and politicized numbers of RCI points, where pandering to developers in sales has led to a very consistent pattern of overpointing the overbuilt areas of the world.  While those who personally benefit will, I am certain, see this as a plus, thus who want fair and objective trading power see this as one of the major flaws of RCI Points.  Once trading power niumbers are published if the forumla remians secret, as in the case of RCI Points, then the resulting numbers racket will be more influenced by developer politicking of the exchange company than by real world market forces.

A good way to see something of real supply/demand curves is for those who have access to the European version of the RCI directory to look at the ''Availibilty'' tables in them.  The cheeleaders for Orlando on these boards regularly look down their noses at South Africa trading into Orlando, but the Availibility charts show the *real* facts.  South AFrica, in real world facts, has a much better supply/demand curve than those of overbuilt areas like Orlando or the Canary Islands.  Most of the time a SA trade into Orlando will be a trade down, not a trade up.

There is no simple fact you need to remember, John, and that is spelled *S-U-P-P-L-Y*




timeos2 said:


> II is killing 5* (Thank heavens - it was THE most meaningless designation in all of timeshare) so that is not rumor but fact.
> 
> As for quality those who try to downplay it usually own in areas that only offer unranked, usually older timeshares.  Of course they don't want quality to play the big role it does. They also try to act like one thing - location, resort ranking, unit size or something - is always the critical thing for every exchange.  Nonsense of course.
> 
> ...


----------



## Transit (Nov 12, 2007)

quality = high prices high prices= wildly unequal trades .Yesterday someone posted the new prices for a new Marriott in Maui 3bed week 26,27 $154,000.00 do you really think that owner will trade to OBX or any low supply high demand area for a prime season unit because of the lack of TS supply there. HOW is the trade value equal to anything else out there? My guess is that unit will be listed but never deposited.There was recently a thread where someone wouldn't trade to a unit that had lower maintanace fees than the unit the poster owned.??? What's different  now than 15 years ago is the vast price differances in TS units .This is certainly effecting how trades are done A 2 bedroom for a 2 bedroom is not enough anymore no matter what the supply and demand is If you want to trade into a Hyatt Aspen Unit you had better come up with something spectacular to trade with or a lot of POINTS. Owners are more informed than ever before and unit values are easily accessed.Upgrading will  be luck and not common. This is the Trend I'm not making this up. If have a lot filled with new KIA's and BMW's for the same trade guess which people will choose.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 13, 2007)

Maui scores as a major destination location with low supply.  It doesn't matter what someone paid for a week there, it will be high on the trading totem pole.

Lets look at an example of the impact of price paid for a week on trades:
1. Owner 1 paid a developer $12,000 for a blue week studio at the Glitz Carlton in overbuilt Branson, gold crown with all the bells and whistles.
2. Owner 2 got a December deal on eBay paying $1,800 for a 1BR summer week at Cable Car Manor, a hotel conversion near Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco with little in the way of amenities other than a reasonably nice unit and its location in a major tourist area with far less supply than demand.
Who should have the greater trading power, the poor sap who paid way too much after a developer tour or the savvy buyer who got a really good eBay deal?

And between the new KIA's and BMW's, my choice would be none of the above.  I would hold out for a nice classic MGA or Jag Mark II.  Style seems to be an unknown word to today's automakers.  
Well, almost.  Morgan, and perhaps Caterham, are exceptions.


----------



## Transit (Nov 13, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Maui scores as a major destination location with low supply.  It doesn't matter what someone paid for a week there, it will be high on the trading totem pole.The Lesser resorts now show up as getaways
> 
> Lets look at an example of the impact of price paid for a week on trades:
> 1. Owner 1 paid a developer $12,000 for a blue week studio at the Glitz Carlton in overbuilt Branson, gold crown with all the bells and whistles.
> ...


 This is a perfect analogy   Now comes owner #3, who buys Glitz carlton West from developer for double the money. Owner #1 gets the trade because owner #2 can't see it with the quality filters  This has been interesting but I'm putting it to a real test.I put a request first in for some really ridiculously tough trades in high demand seasons at some resorts with eyebrow raising prices I'm using my VV unit outside of SVO's safety net where I get great exchanges .Just to see what happens. This resort used to be with RCI now it is with II


----------



## Bill4728 (Nov 13, 2007)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> What those who own in overbuilt areas always seem to try to avoid is that there are really only two basic factors in trade value:
> 1) supply
> 2) demand
> Everything else is secondary, including location and ''quality''. They are merely drivers of demand. And the real world clearly shows that the most important of those two drivers is location, the most important single amenity that a resort has to offer.



I disagree. I own two resorts in Whistler BC.  There is very little supply of II resort in Whistler because most resorts trade with RCI in whistler. So if your idea that it is all supply and demand is true, they both should trade great since there is so little supply and such high demand. The 5* resort trades so very much better than the non 5* (even though both are RCI gold crown)  the only difference in II eyes would seem to me to be the 5* rating.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 14, 2007)

Transit said:


> This is a perfect analogy   Now comes owner #3, who buys Glitz carlton West from developer for double the money. Owner #1 gets the trade because owner #2 can't see it with the quality filters  This has been interesting but I'm putting it to a real test.I put a request first in for some really ridiculously tough trades in high demand seasons at some resorts with eyebrow raising prices I'm using my VV unit outside of SVO's safety net where I get great exchanges .Just to see what happens. This resort used to be with RCI now it is with II



Of course, when it comes to overbuilt areas, much of the year the upward quality filers seem to be turned off, as any standard week can trade into much higher ranked resorts then.

But you evade the question.  Do you believe that a sucker overpaying a developer for a dud week should have preference over a savvy buyer of a good week?


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 14, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> But you evade the question.  Do you believe that a sucker overpaying a developer for a dud week should have preference over a savvy buyer of a good week?



I don't believe anyone has recently stated that developer price plays any part in the trade value picture.  It is even a stretch to say that annual fee plays although often a high quality resort in a good area will have higher annual fees. There would be some case that a lower fee resort - which tend to be less well featured and may be less well maintained - shouldn't be an equal trade in.  But under the weeks system if you enforced that there would be virtually no trades allowed. The weeks systems depend on the unequal being twisted and values factored in until it is made to seem to be equal. All done in total back room secrecy of course since there is no real basis for any of it.  If the convoluted process was ever actually revealed publicly the laughter and disbelief of potential users would bring the systems crashing down.  It's one of many reasons it isn't a sustainable model over the long term as is becoming more and more obvious all the time.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 14, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> I don't believe anyone has recently stated that developer price plays any part in the trade value picture.  It is even a stretch to say that annual fee plays although often a high quality resort in a good area will have higher annual fees. There would be some case that a lower fee resort - which tend to be less well featured and may be less well maintained - shouldn't be an equal trade in.  But under the weeks system if you enforced that there would be virtually no trades allowed. The weeks systems depend on the unequal being twisted and values factored in until it is made to seem to be equal. All done in total back room secrecy of course since there is no real basis for any of it.  If the convoluted process was ever actually revealed publicly the laughter and disbelief of potential users would bring the systems crashing down.  It's one of many reasons it isn't a sustainable model over the long term as is becoming more and more obvious all the time.



Transit is contending that the price paid for a timeshare should determine its trade value, and that would, logically include developer prices.

What is not a sustainable model is a points system like RCI Points that totally ignores the realities of supply and demand, even those published by RCI itself, in setting a points numbers racket that is rigged to favor developers in sales and blatantly overpoints the overbuilt areas.  Any numbers system that publishes the results but not the secret process to set them gives both motive and opportunity for fraud and it is there is spades in RCI Points.  Supply and demand are not convuluted, but merely the normal working of any market based system.  Rigging and freezing rigid numbers like RCI Points, smacks more of a command economy, wage / price freezes, or rent control and are very anti-market.

The only thing that has sustained RCI Points so far is its parasitical relationship in which it rips off RCI Weeks.  Weeks needs to pluck this blood sucker off of our backside.


----------



## Transit (Nov 14, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> But you evade the question.  Do you believe that a sucker overpaying a developer for a dud week should have preference over a savvy buyer of a good week?


My whole point is it's not about what anyone believes it's whats happening now.There are closed door deals with developers and exchange companies that allow brand name blue week resorts to see inventory before others.Mini systems grab good weeks of there own and points systems get their share ,that leaves whatevers left to those who have tiger traders.Some of the best inventory is not necceseraly going to those with tiger traders anymore because of this.Granted good traders will still get good units in shifts and bands but certain brand units will trade on a different plain amoungst themselves.If they open the next Hyatt in Edison N.J. Its an automatic tiger trader in II right or wrong thats the way it is.


----------



## Transit (Nov 14, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Transit is contending that the price paid for a timeshare should determine its trade value, and that would, logically include developer prices.


I'm not saying that it should .I'm saying that it does. Developers work with exchange companies to make sure of it. Even in areas like Branson and Orlando ,Marriotts trade very well just to mention one.


----------



## barndweller (Nov 14, 2007)

Perhaps the OP question should be : II or RCI or Independent which is better?

The answer is, of course, *that depends*.

Where at one time RCI was the only game in town, now there are plenty of different choices for the potential exchanger. Arguing points vs weeks is of no concequence if we look at all the exchange venues available. All we need to do is choose the one that will best serve our needs for the exchange desired. No one has to be stuck with only one avenue. Personally, RCI is not an option for the quality resorts I desire and with a Diamond account, I can use II with a points system. Trading Places & Hawaiian Timeshare Exchange have loads of Hawaii availability that will allow upgrade in size for an additional fee, a feature not available at II. DAE gives me an avenue into European & Australian exchanges. SFX offers excellent Mexico & western US exchanges. And Redweek is trying to become the new version of points for all. The end result for exchangers today is that with the internet, the explosion of owner rental availability and rising interest in niche independent companies, RCI & II are rapidly loosing their importance. Once the big name developers form relationships with the independents or develope their own mini systems, we exchangers can pick among them all for what is important to each of us whether location or quality. And as the population ages, we may even see a change in desirable locations, as well. As travel costs escalate, retirees & young families may choose locations closer to home and demand may increase for areas that are now considered secondary choices. Supply and demand will always be a factor but who has the supply & exactly where is the highest demand will change over time.

The weeks vs points argument is getting obsolete before it hardly got going.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 16, 2007)

As more timesharers become aware that they do have options with independent exchange companies, you are exactly correct.  The big boys, and particularly the arrogance of RCI is playing fast and loose with exchange deposits, will be humbled by genuine competition from other players who keep the customers interests in mind to a greater degree.

But that time is not fully here, yet.  Better informed timesharers are aware of and often use the independents.  Too often, however, the resorts do not bother to inform members of these options.  We can all be proactive in this regard and urge our resorts to fully inform all of their members of their ability to use independents.  We can write a letter to the editor of the resort newsletter, for example, as well.  Some independents will even pay the postage of the HOA newsletter if they will include a brochure from the independent exchange company.  That saves the HOA some money, especially if they do it for more than one independent.

Instead of just complaining about the decline of the big exchange companies, we can be part of the solution by helping to spread the word on the independents.



barndweller said:


> Perhaps the OP question should be : II or RCI or Independent which is better?
> 
> The answer is, of course, *that depends*.
> 
> ...


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 16, 2007)

barndweller said:


> Perhaps the OP question should be : II or RCI or Independent which is better?
> 
> The answer is, of course, *that depends*.
> 
> ...



Very well said. No right - no wrong and no one answer for all.  Use what works for you from the ever growing pallet of choices.  Trying to keep people in the box of the old week for week only option simply doesn't fly anymore but is one of many options every owner should use when appropriate.


----------



## Carolinian (Nov 16, 2007)

The problem is that the majority of timesharers do not know about their options.  Once there is true competition, it will be a new day in timesharing, but as long as resorts keep their members in the dark about options such as independents and don't dual affiliate to give the II option, RCI will continue to effectively be a monopoly on exchanging at many RCI-only resorts.

This is what concerned timesharers can help change by working with our resorts to help grow the competition.


----------



## Transit (Nov 16, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> The problem is that the majority of timesharers do not know about their options.



Tuggers have a better advantage exchanging than the average timeshareowner because of this. Demand,supply,quality all involved with trading but if the owners not determined they wont get good trades.


----------

