# RCI apparently sued again over rentals



## Carolinian (Mar 17, 2006)

I am told that there is now another lawsuit against RCI over the rental issue, and also some of the points vs weeks issues.  This one is in the US District Court in New Jersey, but I don't know what district.  It is supposed to be on the website of one of the three law firms involved next week.  I will post a link when that info is up.

The plot thickens!


----------



## taffy19 (Mar 17, 2006)

There is some more about it here.


----------



## Barbeque (Mar 17, 2006)

Interesting a week or so ago I did a search for July or August for SO CAL and Hawaii using a summer CARLSBAD INN week and I got sorry no matches.  Today useing the same search I received 4 matches not what I consider as equivalent trades  but they  were more than none.  Maybe these actions will make RCI clean up their act for a while.  I have done well exchanging with RCI but have made use of ongoing searches.  A few years ago when they wanted my Cabo week we had all kinds of matches now it takes an ongoing search. Supply and demand is dictating trading (They are just manipulating the supply with the rentals)


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 17, 2006)

*So much bluster. No results.  No need to talk*

Personally I would rather drop my membership to any part of RCI than to have anything to do even remotely with these sleezy firms.  While I have always hated RCI renting deposits these moneygrubbers aren't the answer, they are a bigger problem. Who says Jackie Childs retired when Seinfelt went off the air? 

Fortunately, as I have already stated, its all a bunch of hot air and unlikely to affect anything in the near term. By the time anything comes of it whatever RCI has in mind will already be in place and the members can make their own decisions if they wish to stay and use it or not.  No good will come of this that couldn't have been handled much better at the member level. Use it or don't.  Thats the real answer.  I will now fight as hard as possible from commenting any more no matter what nonsense gets posted until there is something of substance that might actually amount to a change in what RCI does. I don't anticipate having to do that for a long, long time.  Fighting my typing hand to stay off the sue RCI threads until then.


----------



## Dave M (Mar 17, 2006)

Like you, John, I'll make one post and then try to retire from this subject, leaving it to those who expect to see results from these lawsuits.

RCI's contract allows it to use deposited weeks as it sees fit. If we don't like how RCI operates, there are other very good - perhaps better - exchange company alternatives. That combination is a powerful defense for RCI. 

RCI reports an amazing success ratio (mid 90s percent range) in matching acceptable exchanges to requests. A leading CPA firm audits those reported exchange numbers every year. That adds to the defense.

If there are so many successes and other good options, where is the broken contractual promise? I don't see one. Does a statement by one employee of RCI for how deposits will be handled constitute a contract, particularly if it's at odds with the legal contract that binds our RCI membership? I don't think so.

As John suggests, this will take many years before it's played out. And I can't see how RCI will be forced to do anything different from what it does today - unless enough members vote by taking their business elsewhere.

I believe suing RCI is merely going to result in an increase in costs for RCI, something that will ultimately be felt by the same people - members - that these suits purport to protect.

I predict that, like most class action efforts, the only real winners will be the lawyers and the shills that gather clients for the lawyers.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 17, 2006)

Actually, there is another winner.  That's TUG.  The ratings will go up giving the RCI non-likers more to talk about and hope for.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 17, 2006)

The idea that it is simply a matter of choosing whether to use RCI oursleves or not doesn't get it.  That fails to see the big picture.  RCI's new policies are kicking the props out from under resorts by completely altering the dynamics of the ownership/exchange model of timesharing.  Ultimately this will threaten the finances of our resorts, resulting in either much higher m/f's or, in some cases, the resort going belly up.

As far as RCI's contract is concerned, it is a contract of adhesion, and therefore probably meaningless when it tramples member rights like this.

If RCI is going to play the rental game, we need to work to either stop it by litigation, legislation, or regulatory action, or we need to work to build the exchanging alternatives like DAE, HTSE, SFX, etc.

Right now, the independents do not have a big enough footprint in the exchange market for RCI to argue that they constitute an alternative.  If we work hard enough to get our resorts to get the word out, perhaps they will be in time.  For resorts that are not dual affiliated with II and which do not let their members know about the independents, RCI is functionally a monopoly when it comes to exchanging.  Monopolies cannot simply be allowed to make up what rules they are governed by.

I suspect that one positive outcome of all of this is that it may get the attention of resorts to look for alternatives, and they may start working more with the independents.

Legislation is another way to deal with this problem.  Federal legislation is  more difficult than getting some states moving, but states cannot regulate interstate commerce.  What states can do is put in some very strong disclosure requirements.  Resorts that are affiliated with exchange companies are already required to file exchange disclosures by state law, which are provided by the exchange company.  What needs to be added is rental disclosures.  If these were required to be provided by developers at point of sale, and included info on how many rentals the exchange company was making to the general public and the range of prices, no one would buy a timeshare from the developers, who would then twist the exchange company's arm to end the rentals.  That would solve the problem.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 17, 2006)

Carolinian,

Some of us understand the big picture completely.  It's just that some of us believe in a different future for the timesharing industry than you do.

The timesharing concept that you so care about is changing.  There will always be a group of people who want to exchange weeks the way it always has been done.  So, you don't need to worry about it going away completely.  It's just that points and resort groups IS the way of the future for timesharing.  Exchange companies are not needed.   It's just like long distance companies are not needed for telephone calls.

It's even possible today to get to any timeshare in the world without any exchange companies.  Just join a large points based resort group.  Reserve weeks you want to use, rent or direct exchange.  Use rental profits to rent other units you don't have direct access to through your resort group. 

If your resort can't command a rent greater than its maintenance fees, the perhaps it's best for that resort to terminate.


----------



## reddiablosv (Mar 17, 2006)

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> Carolinian,
> 
> Some of us understand the big picture completely.  It's just that some of us believe in a different future for the timesharing industry than you do.
> 
> ...




Boca,  all progress is change , but all change is not progress!!..  Would it be better for timeshare owners if all exchange companies rented members deposits for profit rather than offering them for exchange??   You know,  like RCI.  RCI picks the best, we get the rest.   The lawsuit accuses RCI of looting the best deposits for their rental pool rather than offering them for exchange.  Would it be best for timeshare owners if II, SFX,  DAE, HTSE, etc. did the same?   If no one challenges RCI now, what is to stop others from following.   Market forces????   How many RCI members even know what RCI is doing today????  You don't even believe it,  or  John , or Dave.    You guys are like the OJ  jury.  The evidence is clear ,  but you just don't want to believe.   It's that or your loyalities are not with timeshare owners?   Ben


----------



## JLB (Mar 17, 2006)

Hopefully I, too, will make one post and retire from this, what has been a burning fuse for years here.

As I said on TS4Ms, I don't believe it is all that important who wins or loses this suit, or what the merits of it are.  As a student of the constantly-changing Terms and Conditions I realize the hoops that must be jumped through to file a suit against this company, and the penalties for losing.

The filing of a suit, or suits, speaks loudly and boldy, that it is more than just a few bold people here and on other forums that are upset by Cendant's open system of timesharing, where benefits leak out to folks who have not put anything in.  It is no different than when members of a country club see non-members come in and get benefits they have not paid for.

My hat is off to Steve and the few others who have kept these issues in front of us, but especially to Steve, who has fought a good fight here despite opposition that has been no less than vicious at times.


----------



## geekette (Mar 17, 2006)

I don't think it's a matter of belief or disbelief that RCI is renting inappropriately.  It's more a matter of looking after your own interests and not having to care what happens to RCI.

Hardly matters if RCI is or isn't doing something wrong - if a member can't get what they want, REPEATEDLY, then why do business with them?  Is there really a place for exchange companies anymore?  I don't think so, and I think RCI is positioning itself for when people are completely on the do-it-yourself plan.  Sure looks like they're even encouraging it!  Cendant would be just fine if RCI ceased to exist - why should even they care about RCI's fate?

Why should I?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 17, 2006)

reddiablosv said:
			
		

> Boca,  all progress is change , but all change is not progress!!..  Would it be better for timeshare owners if all exchange companies rented members deposits for profit rather than offering them for exchange??   You know,  like RCI.  RCI picks the best, we get the rest.   The lawsuit accuses RCI of looting the best deposits for their rental pool rather than offering them for exchange.  Would it be best for timeshare owners if II, SFX,  DAE, HTSE, etc. did the same?   If no one challenges RCI now, what is to stop others from following.   Market forces????   How many RCI members even know what RCI is doing today????  You don't even believe it,  or  John , or Dave.    You guys are like the OJ  jury.  The evidence is clear ,  but you just don't want to believe.   It's that or your loyalities are not with timeshare owners?   Ben



Actually, I think it would be best for all exchange companies to go out of business completely and merge their operations with resort operators.  There should be no exchange fees.  None of my points ownerships charges me to book or cancel a reservation.  I'd like to see rentals abound where the rents go to reduce maintenance fees or directly to owners.

Your analogy is a poor one.  OJ killing his wife is illegal.  RCI renting spacebank weeks is not.  If you are getting great exchanges out of RCI, you should remain a member.  If you are not, you should terminate your membership.  If everyone behaved that way, that would do far more to keep RCI's actions in check than any lawsuit.  The problem is that too many people simply accept getting little or nothing for their weeks and yet they keep depositing.  If you ask me, that's their fault not RCIs.

By the way, are you an RCI member?


----------



## Aldo (Mar 17, 2006)

The more the merrier, they say.


----------



## Walt (Mar 18, 2006)

*Who is posting on Threads about RCI that are not members of RCI?*



			
				BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> Actually, I think it would be best for all exchange companies to go out of business completely and merge their operations with resort operators.  There should be no exchange fees.  None of my points ownerships charges me to book or cancel a reservation.  I'd like to see rentals abound where the rents go to reduce maintenance fees or directly to owners.
> 
> Your analogy is a poor one.  OJ killing his wife is illegal.  RCI renting spacebank weeks is not.  If you are getting great exchanges out of RCI, you should remain a member.  If you are not, you should terminate your membership.  If everyone behaved that way, that would do far more to keep RCI's actions in check than any lawsuit.  The problem is that too many people simply accept getting little or nothing for their weeks and yet they keep depositing.  If you ask me, that's their fault not RCIs.
> 
> *By the way, are you an RCI member? *



I have found it interesting that when Threads are written about RCI, Points, Rentals, and Law Suits, that many pro RCI post seem to be posted by Non RCI members. And they may never have been a member of RCI.

I rather not guess who they are. *I am both a RCI and II member*. How about tellings us if you are or have ever been a RCI member.

Walt


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 18, 2006)

Current memberships: 

RCI Points
FairField Points 
RCI Weeks
CLub Sunterra 
SFX

Former memberships: 

II dropped in 2002
DVC sold in 1998


----------



## gmarine (Mar 18, 2006)

Dave M said:
			
		

> Like you, John, I'll make one post and then try to retire from this subject, leaving it to those who expect to see results from these lawsuits.
> 
> RCI's contract allows it to use deposited weeks as it sees fit. If we don't like how RCI operates, there are other very good - perhaps better - exchange company alternatives. That combination is a powerful defense for RCI.
> 
> ...



I agree 100%. Well said. 

I was an RCI member for 1 year. When I decided I wasnt happy with RCI, I cancelled my membership. Complaining about rentals when RCI comes right and and tells you that you give up all rights to your unit seems silly. You agree to it when you deposit. I dont agree with the renting of units by RCI but they tell you up front. If you dont like it you dont have to deposit your unit or be a member.

Timeshare owners have many other choices. If you bought depending on RCI that was a mistake.

The lawsuit is going to go nowwhere and do nothing. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. There doesnt have to be merit to file a lawsuit.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Mar 18, 2006)

*Indirect Access To I-I ?*



			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> Current memberships:
> 
> RCI Points
> FairField Points
> ...


Yeah, but don't you get some sort of I-I timeshare exchange access, 1 level removed, through Club SunTerra? 

I vaguely recall hearing the SunTerra sales guys saying something like that at a resort "owner update" (which turned out to be just a sales presentation in disguise). 

It was all so confusing that we went with RCI Points instead.  Plus, getting minimally into RCI Points was ever so much cheaper than the smallest SunTerra deal the sales folks put on the table -- that, plus the fact that our other timeshare, being RCI-affiliated, offered the option of doing _Points For Deposit_ with it if we choose, once we caught on to how that works.  

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


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 18, 2006)

*II loves the big names*



			
				AwayWeGo said:
			
		

> Yeah, but don't you get some sort of I-I timeshare exchange access, 1 level removed, through Club SunTerra?
> 
> I vaguely recall hearing the SunTerra sales guys saying something like that at a resort "owner update" (which turned out to be just a sales presentation in disguise).
> 
> ...


Alan - Yes, you are correct. There is a loose affiliation between Club Sunterra and the II system but only for use of your Club points not a general account like Fairfield gives you for RCI.  Actually it is a pretty good deal as I have been able to snag new Marriotts using my Club Options (the Sunterra name for points) that I never saw when I did straight weeks deposits with II using the exact same ownership and not even use the whole value of the deposit to do it. To me that shows the favoritism II gives the big names they court so heavily and allow to get away with anything they ask for it seems. 

So I guess while I did stop paying to be an II member I am still technically in II.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 18, 2006)

Walt said:
			
		

> I have found it interesting that when Threads are written about RCI, Points, Rentals, and Law Suits, that many pro RCI post seem to be posted by Non RCI members. And they may never have been a member of RCI.
> 
> I rather not guess who they are. *I am both a RCI and II member*. How about tellings us if you are or have ever been a RCI member.
> 
> Walt



Walt,

I am a member of both RCI and RCI Points.   I find both marginally useful.  As long as I keep getting trade ups or on demand availability when and where I want to go for short or long duration, I'll stay.

I have found the opposite to be true.  I find that many of those who continuously complain about RCI remain members when they should just cancel their membership and do something else.

Also, I think you misinterpret those whom you call Pro RCI.  I am not sure they are so much Pro RCI as they are Pro consumer choice.  If a consumer chooses to get ripped off, that's their prorogative.  They assign the accountability to the consumer and not the company.  Personal accountability is paramount.

If everyone did the best they could to protect their own interests, RCI wouldn't be able to get away with much of what they do.  That is the greatest deterent possible.  It's much more powerful than legal action.  The problem is that many consumers are apathetic and therefore acquiesce to getting taken to the cleaners.  I don't like it, but it's their choice.


----------



## Kauai Kid (Mar 18, 2006)

I was unhappy with the last two Ford vehicles I had.  Solution:  buy a Honda.

If you are unhappy with RCI there is a solution.  Use someone else.  There are many, many, many exchange agencies.

Sterling


----------



## Kozman (Mar 18, 2006)

*Forced RCI Membership*

Everyone keeps saying to leave RCI and not do business with them.  I would probably consider this, but I am a Fairfield points memeber and we are all forced to be a member through maintenance fees paid.


----------



## bogey21 (Mar 18, 2006)

There is no question in my mind that RCI Weeks no longer has the utility it once had.  Although I am a happy RCI Points Member, I keep an independent Weeks Account open for two reasons.  First, is that it gives me access to Weeks at Points Resorts where only a small portion of the Resort has converted to Points.  I can't access those Weeks from my Points Account.  And Second, I like the priority I get when exchanging back into my home resort.  It only costs me an Exchange Fee to convert a mid-September Week into a Summer Week at my Myrtle Beach Resort.

Slowly I have been converting my timeshare ownerships into places that I like to go, when I like to go, thus minimizing my need for exchanges.  My RCI Weeks Account is paid ahead for a few years.  Whenever it is that I am asked to pay a Membership Fee to keep it alive, I will consider dropping it particularly if PFD is still offered by RCI Points.

GEORGE


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 18, 2006)

bogey21 said:
			
		

> Slowly I have been converting my timeshare ownerships into places that I like to go, when I like to go, thus minimizing my need for exchanges.  My RCI Weeks Account is paid ahead for a few years.  Whenever it is that I am asked to pay a Membership Fee to keep it alive, I will consider dropping it particularly if PFD is still offered by RCI Points.


That is the rreal key and the best strategy.  We have worked our ownerships to a place where RCI is largely irrelevant for our situation.


----------



## taffy19 (Mar 18, 2006)

Kozman said:
			
		

> Everyone keeps saying to leave RCI and not do business with them.  I would probably consider this, but I am a Fairfield points memeber and we are all *forced* to be a member through maintenance fees paid.


That to me is *wrong* as it should be your choice which exchange company you want to belong to.  Only you decide in the first place if you want to make exchanges or not.


----------



## JudyS (Mar 18, 2006)

I for one am happy to see this lawsuit.  I can't be certain that RCI is "skimming" off the best weeks, but the lawsuit offers at least a reasonable chance of finding out if that is the case or not, and perhaps stopping it if it is the case.

I am not a lawyer, but I very much doubt that RCI has the right to rent out any weeks that it chooses and pocket the proceeds, even if RCI's Terms & Conditions says that RCI can do anything that it wants with deposited weeks. The fact that RCI presents itself as an exchange company implies that they will, in fact, provide exchanges, not just take weeks and rent them out. Also, RCI says that they provide *comparable* exchanges, which will not be possible if a substantial portion of desirable deposits are diverted to rentals.  

Furthermore, if RCI really intends its T&C to mean that they can do *anything* with the weeks they receive (rent them, let them expire even if people want them, give them to their CEO for free, whatever) then I think they are setting up a "lack of consideration" situation.  The "RCI can rent out all the weeks because its T&C says so" argument basically says that members give RCI the $89 membership fee and their timeshare week, and in exchange, RCI is allowed to pocket the $89, take the week for its own use, and give the members nothing.  This doesn't sound like an legal agreement to me. 

As for the advice to just not use RCI, let me point out that people with weeks banked at RCI gave those weeks to RCI as much as three years ago, before the allegations of "skimming" started.  The "Don't use RCI" advice doesn't work if they already have your week.


----------



## reddiablosv (Mar 18, 2006)

JudyS said:
			
		

> I for one am happy to see this lawsuit.  I can't be certain that RCI is "skimming" off the best weeks, but the lawsuit offers at least a reasonable chance of finding out if that is the case or not, and perhaps stopping it if it is the case.
> 
> I am not a lawyer, but I very much doubt that RCI has the right to rent out any weeks that it chooses and pocket the proceeds, even if RCI's Terms & Conditions says that RCI can do anything that it wants with deposited weeks. The fact that RCI presents itself as an exchange company implies that they will, in fact, provide exchanges, not just take weeks and rent them out. Also, RCI says that they provide *comparable* exchanges, which will not be possible if a substantial portion of desirable deposits are diverted to rentals.
> 
> ...




Judy, you are right on target.  RCI will not be the first company to try to make illegal or unethical behavior legitimate by writing self serving T&Cs that has been shot down under legal challenge.   In addition,  there is the whole notion of full disclosure.   The timeshare owner deposits his week with RCI with the expectation of getting a comprable exchange.   Is he being told that what percentage of the weeks deposited are being diverted to the rental pool? Would he still deposit his week, if he was  told that 90% of all Hawaii summer weeks deposited are diverted for rent rather than being offered  for exchange?    Would he still deposit his week with RCI or might he choose HTSE if he was given full disclosure?


----------



## copper (Mar 18, 2006)

JLB said:
			
		

> My hat is off to Steve and the few others who have kept these issues in front of us, but especially to Steve, who has fought a good fight here despite opposition that has been no less than vicious at times.



Very well put.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 18, 2006)

copper said:
			
		

> Very well put.



If the descriptor of "vicious" is used, I'd have to say that it goes both ways.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 18, 2006)

JudyS said:
			
		

> I for one am happy to see this lawsuit.  I can't be certain that RCI is "skimming" off the best weeks, but the lawsuit offers at least a reasonable chance of finding out if that is the case or not, and perhaps stopping it if it is the case.
> 
> I am not a lawyer, but I very much doubt that RCI has the right to rent out any weeks that it chooses and pocket the proceeds, even if RCI's Terms & Conditions says that RCI can do anything that it wants with deposited weeks. The fact that RCI presents itself as an exchange company implies that they will, in fact, provide exchanges, not just take weeks and rent them out. Also, RCI says that they provide *comparable* exchanges, which will not be possible if a substantial portion of desirable deposits are diverted to rentals.
> 
> ...



I agree with most of your points.  I, too, like that RCI is being challenged.  I'd just like for the truth to come out one way or another.

What I disagree with is your last point.  A person who deposited their week 3 years ago could have exchanged it 3 years ago.  They had the opportunity to exchange and they chose not to do so.  If the choices are not as good now, they were the ones who took the chance and lost out.

Nobody says that there are no exchanges available.  In fact, there are plenty.


----------



## JLB (Mar 19, 2006)

Yeah, I was around for kinder, gentler times and I still have private emails concerning Steve and his tenacity.  But, he has hung in there. 

It's the teaming up against one person that makes it so hard.  That appears to have fueled his passion over the years.

If you really pay attention to him, though, he is not just all sour grapes.  He has a strong love for and committment to timesharing and obviously would like to see it preserved for others to enjoy also.  You can tell he has devoted a lot of years to it.



			
				BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> If the descriptor of "vicious" is used, I'd have to say that it goes both ways.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 19, 2006)

JLB said:
			
		

> Yeah, I was around for kinder, gentler times and I still have private emails concerning Steve and his tenacity.  But, he has hung in there.
> 
> It's the teaming up against one person that makes it so hard.  That appears to have fueled his passion over the years.
> 
> If you really pay attention to him, though, he is not just all sour grapes.  He has a strong love for and committment to timesharing and obviously would like to see it preserved for others to enjoy also.  You can tell he has devoted a lot of years to it.



I love Steve.  He is great for timesharing.  His posts have the highest ratings of any I have seen.  He is the EF Hutton of TUG.  When Carolinian speaks, people listen.

I have never seen anyone as committed to the purity of weeks based timesharing as Carolinian.  I am certainly not as committed to my positions as he is.

My focus is on predicting outcomes.  Unfortunately for Steve, the trends I see are not favorable for his desired end state for timesharing.  More rentals, more point based offerings, more resort groups and slimmer pickings for weeks based exchange is what I read in the tea leaves.  There are too many settled macroeconomic theories that help support those predictions.


----------



## skim118 (Mar 19, 2006)

As an RCI weeks member, I appreciate Steve's efforts in pointing out the RCI "rentals" issue.

Also I clearly remember in many threads it was "pointed" out to Steve that the absence of any lawsuits against RCI should be considered proof that RCI is in the clear !

I am glad a lawsuit has been filed;  if nothing else RCI will not blatantly rent out Embassy Maui weeks thru Snaptravel for a while !

Sara


----------



## Walt (Mar 19, 2006)

*Lack of post from Pro RCI Group*



			
				skim118 said:
			
		

> As an RCI weeks member, I appreciate Steve's efforts in pointing out the RCI "rentals" issue.
> 
> Also I clearly remember in many threads it was "pointed" out to Steve that the absence of any lawsuits against RCI should be considered proof that RCI is in the clear !
> 
> ...



I find it interesting that the Pro RCI Group's plan of action appears to be to not fuel the fire with post on this Thread.  This *Damage Control * is the same as I would expect from RCI itself.

Walt


----------



## geekette (Mar 19, 2006)

Walt said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that the Pro RCI Group's plan of action appears to be to not fuel the fire with post on this Thread.  This *Damage Control * is the same as I would expect from RCI itself.
> 
> Walt



Many of us don't really feel the need to "pick a side".  I'm a member of RCI Weeks and have a deposit there.  I also use DAE.  Please don't try to fit me into one group or another as I am pro *and * con.

RCI is what it is, does what it does.  I've had some great vacations.  Doesn't make me a cheerleader.

I like that RCI has more resorts to choose from (were all to have weeks deposited for exchange) but I don't like their rental practices or constant fee increases.  Doesn't make me a basher.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 19, 2006)

*It isn't all one thing*



			
				skim118 said:
			
		

> As an RCI weeks member, I appreciate Steve's efforts in pointing out the RCI "rentals" issue.
> Sara


Concentrating solely on the rental issue and weeks trades. I applaud Steve as well as he has been a great voice for those that believe the weeks based system was the best.  I think he overlooks the fact that many owners are in fact dissatisfied with what they get in week for week trades and do in fact desire an improved model such as RCI Points.  That doesn't mean his position is any less valid but don't try to say those of us who prefer points are automatically in the wrong.  

The second mistake he often falls into is combining the rental question with points. They are two separate issues as rentals were around long before points were a gleam in RCI corporate eyes. I know he feels that points somehow triggered the explosion in rentals but IMO that happened due to the Internet more than points. We don't know for sure and it can be argued both ways but trying to make them one issue doesn't help anyones case. I have always been against renting by exchange companies but I also understand why they need to do it. What Steve & I disagree on is the "why" rents are out there not the fact that renting by exchange companies isn't good for owners.  Unless either points or weeks goes away so we can see what that does to the rental offers we can't know for sure if either theory is right or if rentals will occur no matter what trade method is used. 

I would far rather concentrate on the outrageous fees that DVC and now Manhattan Club charge to exchange guests who have already paid their annual costs than the silly arguments over which exchange methodology is best. Those fees hurt everyone - points or weeks - and are clearly in violation of the exchange rules. That is a class suit worth fighting but there isn't much money in the good fight so we won't see Shyster & Shyster at law jumping on that one.


----------



## Walt (Mar 19, 2006)

*Being Neutral is Fine!*



			
				geekette said:
			
		

> Many of us don't really feel the need to "pick a side".  I'm a member of RCI Weeks and have a deposit there.  I also use DAE.  Please don't try to fit me into one group or another as I am pro *and * con.
> 
> RCI is what it is, does what it does.  I've had some great vacations.  Doesn't make me a cheerleader.
> 
> I like that RCI has more resorts to choose from (were all to have weeks deposited for exchange) but I don't like their rental practices or constant fee increases.  Doesn't make me a basher.



Being Neutral and a member of RCI is fine.  My post was not meant for you.  
One, you are posting on this Thread. Two, you have a RCI membership.

Walt


----------



## bogey21 (Mar 19, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> I am told that there is now another lawsuit against RCI over the rental issue, and also some of the points vs weeks issues.



How many lawsuits do we know about?

GEORGE


----------



## Spence (Mar 19, 2006)

timeos2 said:
			
		

> Club Options (the Sunterra name for points) that I never saw when I did straight weeks deposits with II using the exact same ownership and not even use the whole value of the deposit to do it. To me that shows the favoritism II gives the big names they court so heavily and allow to get away with anything they ask for it seems. So I guess while I did stop paying to be an II member I am still technically in II.


SunOptions is the name for Club Sunterra's points.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 19, 2006)

timeos2 said:
			
		

> The second mistake he often falls into is combining the rental question with points. They are two separate issues as rentals were around long before points were a gleam in RCI corporate eyes. I know he feels that points somehow triggered the explosion in rentals but IMO that happened due to the Internet more than points. We don't know for sure and it can be argued both ways but trying to make them one issue doesn't help anyones case. I have always been against renting by exchange companies but I also understand why they need to do it.



As far as exchange companies ''needing'' to do it (rent), one simply has to look at the fact that they were making very nice profits before they got off into the rentals to see that, in fact, they do NOT need to do it.

This argument that ''the internet'' caused exchange company rentals to the general public also doesn't hold water.  The internet is simply the mechanism they used to push the rentals.

The great upsurge in rentals coincided with RCI's offering more and more non-timeshare frills.  Yes there had been cruise exchanges, but a much wider array was added with Points Partners.  I remember the arguments I had with points advocates on the old TUG board in the early days of GPN (the early name of RCI Points), where I observed that some slippery language RCI was using in its description of its new program meant that they were going to start widespread timeshare rentals to the general public to support Points Partner inventory, and that this phase of GPN virtually required them to either rent weeks themselves or to give them to the Points Partners to in turn rent out.  This is one of the reasons I described Points Partners as ''polluting the timeshare exchange system with non-timeshare goods and services''.  The points advocates then came up with some really creative theories as to why there would not be such rentals.  We saw who turned out to be right.  All it took was a little common sense.

As far as I am concerned, to bring timeshare exchanging back to where it ought to be, we need to get rid of all of the frills.  Most of them are very poor value, anyway.


----------



## Barbeque (Mar 19, 2006)

There is a new sighting posted on the sightings board that I believe would have remained in rentals had these lawsuits not been filed.  Looks like damage control to me.   I have received reasonable trades from RCI but have had to educate myself through TUG etc. to do so. Hopefully this will improve in the future.


----------



## jerseygirl (Mar 19, 2006)

Barbeque said:
			
		

> There is a new sighting posted on the sightings board that I believe would have remained in rentals had these lawsuits not been filed.  Looks like damage control to me.   I have received reasonable trades from RCI but have had to educate myself through TUG etc. to do so. Hopefully this will improve in the future.



I thought the same thing when I saw it .... looks like poor SnapTravel (the outside vendor   ) didn't get them this time.  Thank you Walt ... and thank you lawsuits!


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 19, 2006)

*Please - things don't move that fast*



			
				jerseygirl said:
			
		

> I thought the same thing when I saw it .... looks like poor SnapTravel (the outside vendor   ) didn't get them this time.  Thank you Walt ... and thank you lawsuits!


Already I have to break my self imposed rule. Darn.

But really - you are kidding about this, right?  Yes those weeks are on sightings but the same dates are on Snaptravel - I just looked.  SO either there is a glut of that time (overbuilt anyone? - just funnin') or its first come first served on those weeks. I'd bet on #2.  

Hopefully thats it on the topic it but who knows.  Somethings just can't go unchallenged.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 19, 2006)

Well, otherwise, they might have just been on Snaptravel.


----------



## jerseygirl (Mar 19, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Well, otherwise, they might have just been on Snaptravel.



Agree -- just like last time.


----------



## Walt (Mar 19, 2006)

*Maui Embassy Exchanges were not showing up in November!*



			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> Already I have to break my self imposed rule. Darn.
> 
> But really - you are kidding about this, right?  *Yes those weeks are on sightings but the same dates are on Snaptravel * - I just looked.  SO either there is a glut of that time (overbuilt anyone? - just funnin') or its first come first served on those weeks. I'd bet on #2.
> 
> Hopefully thats it on the topic it but who knows.  Somethings just can't go unchallenged.



John,

Check this Post to Ask RCI:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12717&highlight=Walt

This is what I wrote on November 24, 2005:

*"I was told today by the Embassy Maui that the deposit below were Owners Weeks made with a Bulk Spacebanking.* The were not used for Cruises or any other Points program. I have not had one Weeks owner tell me that they can see these weeks when doing an Exchange Search.* I used a week for an Weeks Exchanged Search that had Maximum Trade Value as told to me by a VC. I saw nothing." * 

The *first point * being I saw a very large number of Maui Embassy and many other Hawaiian Weeks on Snap Travel.  With a Week that had Maximum Trade Power* I saw nothing on an Exchange Search*.

The 2nd Point, is that only Maui Embassy Owners should be seeing any Exchanges more than 6 months out.

Walt


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 19, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> As far as exchange companies ''needing'' to do it (rent), one simply has to look at the fact that they were making very nice profits before they got off into the rentals to see that, in fact, they do NOT need to do it.
> 
> This argument that ''the internet'' caused exchange company rentals to the general public also doesn't hold water.  The internet is simply the mechanism they used to push the rentals.
> 
> ...



Here is where we start diverging in opinion.  Rentals and exchanges are two birds of a feather.  Both are methods of trading your week for something else of value.

More rentals are occurring because renting is a more efficient method of trading.  And, markets always trend toward the most efficient method of trade (when markets are open and free trade is prevalent).  Points were created because they approximate renting.  Exchange companies exist only because when timesharing was started, there was not a robust rental market for timeshares.  If there were a robust vacation rentals by owner market in any form when timesharing was created in the 60's, exchange companies would have never been formed.  Now that a robust rental market for timeshares is being created, timeshare exchange will become less and less relevant.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 19, 2006)

geekette said:
			
		

> Many of us don't really feel the need to "pick a side".  I'm a member of RCI Weeks and have a deposit there.  I also use DAE.  Please don't try to fit me into one group or another as I am pro *and * con.
> 
> RCI is what it is, does what it does.  I've had some great vacations.  Doesn't make me a cheerleader.
> 
> I like that RCI has more resorts to choose from (were all to have weeks deposited for exchange) but I don't like their rental practices or constant fee increases.  Doesn't make me a basher.



I completely agree with you.  I subscribe to the Geekette philosophy of timesharing.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 19, 2006)

I think this class action lawsuit was actually initiated by RCI itself as a PR campaign for Tuggers.  RCI was smart and figured out that if they just put news out there that gave timesharers hope, that those same timesharers would believe that things have changed.

It's amazing how people will read something on a message board and then believe it to be true.


----------



## jerseygirl (Mar 19, 2006)

Boca --

I think many timeshare owners would welcome the opportunity to deposit into RCI, choose the rental option, and receive 70-80% of the rental proceeds.  What people object to is RCI's rental of weeks that do not belong to them.  

Without a full and fair accounting of the following two practices, I will remain in the "where there's smoke, there's fire" camp:

(1) The practice of substituting comparable inventory for points partners transactions.  I'm still dying to know which weeks were given up to justify the transfer of all those Maui Embassy weeks to Snap Travel.  I'm willing to bet just about any amount that seasoned TUG members would strongly disagree with RCI's definition of comparable inventory in that little switcheroo.

(2) Defining surplus inventory.  Let's say the Embassy Maui has a trade power score of 95.  There are probably hundreds of requests for those weeks, but the people requesting them have units with a trade power of less than 95.  If no one with a 95 is requesting the weeks, I think RCI calls them surplus inventory, rather than lowering the number to 90 ... then 85, etc.  I have many units with varying degrees of trading power with II.  I'm convinced that II does what an exchange company is supposed to do and gradually lowers the trading power.  For example, I'll be able to see X with my Y week, but not with my Z week.  A few weeks later, I'll be able to see X with my Z week too..  However, I have a strong suspicion that RCI doesn't lower the trading power.  What else could explain the very desirable weeks we see on Snap Travel and other rental outlets?  Perhaps they're all from (1), but I don't think so.

Bottom line -- the inventory is NOT RCI's to rent.  It is deposited, in good faith, by members who believe it is being made available to other members -- no matter what the terms and conditions say.

I'm not an RCI member, but I'm ALWAYS in the little guy's corner.  RCI's arrogance is unbelievable, and it's way past time for someone to hold them accountable.  If an outside, independent auditor (not one paid by RCI) investigates this thoroughly and says everything is on the up and up, then I'll be the first one to stand up and apologize.  But, in the meantime, I couldn't be happier about those 2 (at least) lawsuits. 

- Jerseygirl


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 19, 2006)

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> Here is where we start diverging in opinion.  Rentals and exchanges are two birds of a feather.  Both are methods of trading your week for something else of value.
> 
> More rentals are occurring because renting is a more efficient method of trading.  And, markets always trend toward the most efficient method of trade (when markets are open and free trade is prevalent).  Points were created because they approximate renting.  Exchange companies exist only because when timesharing was started, there was not a robust rental market for timeshares.  If there were a robust vacation rentals by owner market in any form when timesharing was created in the 60's, exchange companies would have never been formed.  Now that a robust rental market for timeshares is being created, timeshare exchange will become less and less relevant.



There is not an owner-based rental market being created.  There are a couple of big exchange companies flooding the market with rentals and driving prices down for owner rentals as well as making exchanges more difficult.  Points cannot be said to approximate rentals when the values are rigged from onhigh by the exchange companies is a fashion that resembes a command economy.  What we are seeing is cutthroat competition by the big exchange companies against 1) owners who rent their own weeks, 2) exchangers, and 3) resorts.  This has the potential to drive all 3 groups out of the market, but dries up the supply for the exchange companies in the process.

Can you point to any independent rental market for timeshare that is comprehensive and handles significant volume?  Hint: one contrived by an exchange company to skim exchange inventory doesn't count!


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 19, 2006)

jerseygirl said:
			
		

> Boca --
> 
> I think many timeshare owners would welcome the opportunity to deposit into RCI, choose the rental option, and receive 70-80% of the rental proceeds.



Mark my words and write down this date.  I predict that RCI will turn the weeks exchange model upside down and do exactly what you suggest.  But, the split will be more like 50/50 like it is for condo hotels and resort rental programs.




			
				jerseygirl said:
			
		

> What people object to is RCI's rental of weeks that do not belong to them.



Actually, this is where you are incorrect.  When the owner of week deposits it into RCI, the original owner assigns their use and disposition rights to RCI.   The owner now has rights to Points or has an exchange credit.


----------



## jerseygirl (Mar 19, 2006)

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> Mark my words and write down this date.  I predict that RCI will turn the weeks exchange model upside down and do exactly what you suggest.  But, the split will be more like 50/50 like it is for condo hotels and resort rental programs.



You're probably right, but I wouldn't give them one of my weeks at that haircut rate.



			
				BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> Actually, this is where you are incorrect.  When the owner of week deposits it into RCI, the original owner assigns their use and disposition rights to RCI.   The owner now has rights to Points or has an exchange credit.



Oh ... I'm pretty clear on what the owner is SUPPOSED to get.  But, if the exchange company is removing weeks unfairly, then they're not getting access to everything they're entitled too.  You generally ignore that point in your arguments.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 19, 2006)

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> Actually, this is where you are incorrect.  When the owner of week deposits it into RCI, the original owner assigns their use and disposition rights to RCI.   The owner now has rights to Points or has an exchange credit.



And the exchange company should NOT take after the old Savings and Loans and play fast and loose with their deposits. It will ultimately have the same result.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 19, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Can you point to any independent rental market for timeshare that is comprehensive and handles significant volume?  Hint: one contrived by an exchange company to skim exchange inventory doesn't count!



This question is irrelevent to my point.  I said the rental market is being created.  Forget the exchange companies, everyone is renting timeshares.  There's the traditional timeshare rental sites, ebay, Marriott, Disney, Bluegreen and others.  Everyone has rental programs and it is expanding not contracting.  Heck, even the independents all rent weeks.

Your question is analogous to making the assertion in 1985 that cell phones will never take off because there is no widescale marketing outlets for selling cell phones directly to consumers.  That would have been an incorrect assertion.

It's starting with the exchange companies because that is where the inventory currently resides.  The balance of power will shift as more resort groups or mini-point systems get created.  They will control the deposits over time and not RCI or II.

Your relabelling of RCI to rentals condominiums international is one of your best insights ever.  Now, I understand that that was just a sarcastic label.  So, you were right for the wrong reason.  But right nonetheless.

The big battle in timesharing will be who will be the first to control the wholesale deposits for mass rentals.   Since II and RCI are the incumbents, they are in the best position to do so.

To change to a pure rental model, all RCI has to do is provide cash instead of points or exchange credits for deposits.   The way to do this is to allow renting RCI points.  Let there be a market for RCI points on eBay like there is for WorldMark credits.  Then, RCI will be giving points to timesharers that will turn those points into cash. RCI rents the weeks or allows their depositers to rent directly from them.  No conflict of interest since the depositer is getting paid upfront.

Right now, what RCI is doing is learning the rental markets for various timeshares.  When they get enough data, they will feel much more comfortable in switching completely to Rentals Condominiums International and you will go down in history as the first person to predict their new name.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 19, 2006)

First of all, as to the independents, the ones I am familiar with do NOT rent exchange deposits to the general public.  Some offer last minute inventory as rentals to members.  DAE has a program where a member can specifically place a week into a rental pool as opposed to an exchange pool.  Trading Places, which is also a management company, does some renting of inventory placed for rental by either members at their managed resorts or the HOA's.
None of these involve skimming from the exchange pool as the big exchange companies are doing.  You are comparing apples and oranges.

The other sites you mention are small volume, compared to the vast number of timeshare weeks out there.  It is further quite disjointed rather than comprehensive and thus is a poorly organized market.  

I don't know about other areas, but on the OBX 70% of owners use their own weeks.  The exchangers are important, because if they all walked away at once, their would be major financial issues.  Most HOA's do not want to hassle with being in the rental business themselves or take the pittiance they would get from someone like RCI.  If RCI crashes the exchange program, most HOA's, I suspect will seek to market weeks to others who want to use at the home resort or exchange with another exchange company.  Individual owners who want to rent their weeks will do so primarily through local agencies, not RCI.  I do not beleive the rental program with RCI you propose would appeal to many owners.  Most who exchange would either use other exchange companies, sell out, or bail out.

In the immediate future, I have a lot of travel plans that do not work with timeshare, so last year, I rented one of my summer OBX weeks, and this year, I already have one of them rented and will probably place the other up for rent.  My renters came from the resort website last year and the resort builiten board this year, at 0% cost to me.  Why would anyone give someone like RCI 50% to rent their weeks.  If they did at the rental rates RCI is charging, it would not leave enough left to pay the m/f for many resorts.

I just don't see either HOA's or owners going for your vision of RCI.  That dog won't hunt.






			
				BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> This question is irrelevent to my point.  I said the rental market is being created.  Forget the exchange companies, everyone is renting timeshares.  There's the traditional timeshare rental sites, ebay, Marriott, Disney, Bluegreen and others.  Everyone has rental programs and it is expanding not contracting.  Heck, even the independents all rent weeks.
> 
> Your question is analogous to making the assertion in 1985 that cell phones will never take off because there is no widescale marketing outlets for selling cell phones directly to consumers.  That would have been an incorrect assertion.
> 
> ...


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 19, 2006)

jerseygirl said:
			
		

> Oh ... I'm pretty clear on what the owner is SUPPOSED to get.  But, if the exchange company is removing weeks unfairly, then they're not getting access to everything they're entitled too.  You generally ignore that point in your arguments.



I have said in other posts that I think RCI renting spacebank weeks is wrong in the current RCI weeks exchange model.  And, when that happens, some (but not all) exchangers lose out.  What I have a problem with is the current RCI weeks exchange model.  Much more so than how RCI is manipulating it.  

As an aside, all systems are manipulated by companies AND consumers.  Neither is completely innocent.  There are countless numbers of people on this board who manipulate the RCI weeks system unethically by doing tricks that are against the rules.  They happen to find a loophole in the system that enables them to exploit it and they do.  After all, loose lips sink ships.

Back to RCI renting spacebank weeks. I believe it is wrong for the same reasons that most people on these boards say its wrong.  I don't need to elaborate on that point because there is so many people on these boards doing it, I am not adding anything to the discussion and debate.   

I also believe that what RCI says they are doing is NOT illegal.  I don't in fact know what they do specifically or if the accounting is sound or bogus.  I hope this class action lawsuit reveals that for all to see.  Then, we will know for sure.  But, I am not holding my breath for that improbably outcome.

In addition, what RCI claims to be doing is theoretically sound when they say they are doing like for like trades out of the spacebank to rent weeks to pay for points products.  Nothing wrong with that either.  It's just a matter of trust.  If you don't trust the company, don't do business with them.  Or, if you do do business with them, make sure that you get equal or more out of it or quit doing business with them.

This has all been a long winded way to say again, but in a different way what I have always said.  The best way to regulate RCI is for depositers to use them if they are happy with what they take out.  If they aren't, they should quit.  If everyone did that, then RCI will be kept in check.  When lawyers get involved, the lawyers get rich and the consumers pay the bill.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 19, 2006)

There is a big problem when they are renting WEEKS inventory to pay for non-timeshare POINTS products!

They are degrading their core business to offer unnecessary frills.  The thing to do is stop the frills and stop the rentals.

What consumers can do is get the word out that this is happening to RCI, and that there are other companies out there that still concentrate on their core business of exchanging.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 19, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> I just don't see either HOA's or owners going for your vision of RCI.  That dog won't hunt.



A couple of points.   This is a fun debate and I am glad that we are not degenerating into name calling.  Let's continue to let the power of the arguments carry the day.

First of all, you keep talking about the big picture.  Your view of the big picture is limited to current timesharing participants.  Timesharing has only penetrated 3% of the US population after 40 years of existence.  Penetration in other countries is far lower.  I would say that from a mass market point of view, it has remained a niche product.  In the big scheme of things, it has been a market failure.

If we are to considre the future of timesharing, we need to determine what are the necessary preconditions for it to penetrate 20% of the World Population.  The big companies are trying to determine a) whether or not it will ever happen, b) who is best positioned to win and capture the lion share of profit, c) what are the necessary preconditions for the market to manifest itself and d) how can they influence it.

This is the point of view I am coming from in this debate.  And, I have been studying not just timesharing, but adjacent markets such as condo hotels, vacation ownership by owners and the regular rental condo markets.

Macroeconomically, the US population will continue to drive the timesharing industry forward.  The demographics and aging population is creating idea conditions for continued investment in vacation products.  Due to the fantastic economics of timeshares (when done right), it can be made affordable to families in all income levels.  Timesharing is the ONLY vacation product where this is true.

As the market develops, the winners will have the most efficient model for delivering what consumers want.  One hypothesis I have is that consumers do NOT want the unpredictability of timeshare weeks exchange.  Rather, they want something that more resembles the hotel reservation system that they are very familiar with.

To me, the most efficient model for timesharing is big resort groups operated by resort management companies.  Owners can reserve any week in the system for free as part of their annual dues and maintenance fees.  They either use, rent for profit or direct exchange their units through the resort group exchange program.  The resort group does its own rentals and because it will often times be a recognized brand, the rates they command will be much higher than what the owner can get on their own.  Therefore, a 50/50 split could yield more than what the owner can get on their own.

Current owners and HOAs will have no choice in the matter.  They will adapt to the new realities of timesharing or see their investment dwindle as others pass them by.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 19, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> There is a big problem when they are renting WEEKS inventory to pay for non-timeshare POINTS products!
> 
> They are degrading their core business to offer unnecessary frills.  The thing to do is stop the frills and stop the rentals.
> 
> What consumers can do is get the word out that this is happening to RCI, and that there are other companies out there that still concentrate on their core business of exchanging.




Frill is in the eye of the beholder.  One person's steak is another person's sizzle.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 19, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> In the immediate future, I have a lot of travel plans that do not work with timeshare, so last year, I rented one of my summer OBX weeks, and this year, I already have one of them rented and will probably place the other up for rent.  My renters came from the resort website last year and the resort builiten board this year, at 0% cost to me.  Why would anyone give someone like RCI 50% to rent their weeks.  If they did at the rental rates RCI is charging, it would not leave enough left to pay the m/f for many resorts.



This post is absolutely precious.  Even Carolinian is resorting to renting.

If someone could rent your week for 2.5 times what your resort could, that would net you more even if you pay that provider 50%.  If that were true, you would be losing money to stick to your principles.

Heck, why don't you limit your rentals to owners at that OBX resort.  That would support the notion of exclusivity.  I wouldn't recommend it because I wouldn't want to see you get less profit than you deserve.

I believe 50% splits won't last long.  15-35% makes more sense long term.  I just wanted to point out that there are markets where 50% split is in force.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 19, 2006)

The present owner base is substantial.  If you are correct and RCI wants to forfeit that market for the rental scheme you project, I am quite sure that there will be other companies who want to pick it up.  The transition is likely to be quite messy, however, resulting in a fair amount of dislocation until eveyone figures out which way to jump.

The simple fact is that if I am going to just rent, I am not going to lock myself in to one operator.  I will use cash.

When it comes to rental by a private owner, that is not at all inconsistent with either exchanging or using.  Indeed I had rented a summer OBX week once in the past when I had enough deposit credits for what I wanted to do and trip plans for areas where timeshare didn't really work.  The problem comes in when exchange companies betray the trust of their depositors to misuse the deposits to undermine both exchanging and owner rentals.

If RCI required a signed spacebank deposit form and had a prominent statement saying that RCI reserved the right to rent out the week deposited if it choose to, I suspect their deposits would fall off substantially.  What they are doing now they are doing by stealth with many of their members, and that is hardly honest.


----------



## Jennie (Mar 20, 2006)

As President of the Greater New York Timeshare Owners Group (a volunteer run group)I interact with hundreds of timeshare owners. Most of them have never heard of TUG and despite frequent recommendations that they visit this web site, few follow through. Many did not have access to the Internet until the last year or two. They tend to be older folks who have owned fixed weeks for several years. During our first contact with them, most express dissatisfaction over the exchanges (or lack therof) they have been offered by RCI in recent years. They look back on all the great vacations they used to take, and wonder why they are no longer able to get those kind of exchanges. None were aware of the rental activity RCI has been engaging in on an accelerating basis. And most were shocked and outraged to learn that the weeks they have deposited with RCI were not necessarily going to other ts owners as exchanges. Word will undobtedly spread to their baby boomer children and grandchildren. The expected future ts purchases from these groups may not materialize if they keep hearing complaints about ts ownership from their respected elders.

Clearly when RCI began engaging in this practise, which represented a significant change in their long-standing business model, they did not send out notices to their members (like the banks and credit card companies are required to do) nor did they highlight it in the fine print in the annual directory. I did not even know they had inserted the phrase about their right to rent or otherwise use deposited weeks until it was posted here on TUG a couple of years back. It certainly was not in writing when many of us became RCI members in the 1980's or early 90's. I did know of their public rental activity which began with the Mall Perks program and then through onsale.com where I "won" a 2 bedroom lock-off week in Williamburg at Christmas for $9.00 (I'm guessing this was about 1998?). There was quite an outcry from TUGgers and other RCI members about renting weeks to the general, non-timeshare owning public and the programs were quickly withdrawn. 

*I strongly suspect that only a tiny percentage of RCI members are aware of RCI's rental activity. So to say that people who do not like what RCI is doing should terminate their membership is not really viable.*

In a white paper produced by RCI two years ago, they boasted about the fact that they were able to provide acceptable exchanges for about 92% of their 3 million members. But what about the 240,000 members who received nothing? What happened to all of those weeks? And of the people who received an exchange, how many of them really got what they requested, or at least something comparable in size and quality to what they deposited? How many may have settled for something not at all to their liking, just so that their week would not go to waste? Or how many (like one of our newer members) received a studio week in Palm Springs in the brutal heat of summer in exchange for the 2 bedroom Gold Crown February Hawaii week they deposited 18 months in advance AND thought it was a wonderful exchange? I guess ignorance can be bliss, as the saying goes. 

I am proud to say that in the past year alone, I have helped 12 people rescind their purchase of over-priced developer weeks at inferior resorts, usually during off-season. My husband works for a large organization. Everyone there knows him as "the timeshare guy" because we own 15 weeks and travel extensively to dream locations. (I have been a TUGger since 1995 and it is here that I learned what to buy and how to trade). When a friend or relative of one of hubby's co-worker's buys a timeshare, they are immediately told to call me to see if they did the right thing. (I wish they would call BEFORE purchasing). Only one of the 13 people who called me in the past year actually bought something that met their needs, at the right price. The average person is still totally unaware of the resale market. The first thing I asked these people was: "Do you plan on using the week to stay at that resort most every year?" and _every one_ of them said no, they would rarely or never want to go there. They stated that they bought the week because the salesperson showed them the RCI book and led them to believe that they could exchange into any one of the pictured resorts anytime they wished to do so. We all know how deceitful ts salespeople can be. Yet to this day most first time ts buyers are making the purchase because they have been sold "a false dream" about RCI exchanges.

I fault ARDA and other travel-related consumer protection agencies for not preparing an honest, factual "truth-in-exchanging" form and mandating that it be read to, and signed by, the customer as an integral part of the purchase process. I'd gladly write it for them!!!  Under no circumstances should a person about to pay $13,000. for a one bedroom deep off-season blue week in a rundown low demand (at any time of the year)resort think that he will be able to readily exchange it for Aruba or Key West in February. But this is exactly what one of the 12 couples I helped was led to believe. And they are well educated, intelligent people who hold high paying managerial positions. I'm glad they spoke with me before the 7 day rescision period expired, and that they were able to cancel the sales contract. I told them that timeshare ownership can be very rewarding and I advised them to meet with hubby and I in the near future so we could help them find a more suitable timeshare at the right price. They replied that they will never buy a timeshare again because they have since talked to many unhappy owners and have been told that it is better to just rent what they want each year from owners or from "all those web sites where you can get weeks for less than the price an owner pays for annual maintenance fees."

As this information becomes more widely available, the whole timeshare ownership concept (including points)may be eroded, to the detriment to all of us. If people stop buying developer weeks, new ts properties will not be built.

The 15 weeks we own have been bought gradually over the past 11 years, via resale, at great bargain prices. All would readily sell now for more than we paid.  All but one are fixed weeks. They include 4 winter weeks at the Royal Resorts in Cancun, two consecutive Florida February weeks including President's week (in the same unit), 3 consecutive Cape Cod summer weeks (in the same unit), a July week in Brigantine New Jersey, and a Christmas week in Hawaii. We would gladly vacation there year after year.

I used to trade our weeks quickly through RCI for properties of equal desirability. When the rental games began, I waited months for requested weeks that kept popping up on web sites such as SkyAuction.com. So I stopped space-banking them. For the past 4 years I have been renting out our weeks, primarily through RedWeek.com, and then using the proceeds to rent exactly what I want from other owners who advertise on RedWeek or TUG. I keep my RCI membership mainly to obtain "Last Call" weeks and occasionally as Extra Holiday" rentals. 

As more and more owners do as I do, RCI's inventory of prime weeks will dwindle. Many believe that a large number of the prime weeks that points owners are receiving have been "raided" from the "weeks bank." So if weeks owners stop depositing, points owners will also suffer.

I have also "won" dozens of very prime weeks on SkyAuction for 50% or less than I would have paid in maintenance fees had I owned the week. And I have no continuing responsibility to "juggle" the week every year, nor do I face any special assessments if the resort suffers severe hurricane damage, etc... For $26. Travel Guard insurance, if the week I obtained through SkyAuction is not habitable, all my fees are refunded, and even the cost of the airline tickets purchased to go to the resort are refunded. (This happened to me once). 

As others have stated, I applaud a lawsuit so that RCI's activities can be examined and if found to be detrimental to members, corrective action can be mandated. Even though I have found ways to enjoy timeshare ownership without RCI exchanges, too many owners lack the knowledge and skill to do so. Most bought their weeks with a promise of fair RCI exchanges and they deserve to receive that.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 20, 2006)

Well said, Jennie!

On the OBX, several resorts have noticed a dropoff in exchange deposits recently.  I think people as figuring out from their own experiences that something is rotten in the state of RCI, although they do not have the info availible to Tuggers to put their finger on exactly what it is like we can.  Someone long involved in the resale business also commented to me that it used to be that complaints about RCI were almost never heard as a reason for putting weeks up for resale, and now it is an all-too-common chorus from sellers.  People are figuring out that something is wrong, and it has potential to damage the entire industry, iin spite of the brave new world models that some postulate.

BTW, do you also suggest to some of the concerned owners that they look into using some of the independents like HTSE, SFX, and DAE? These companies have a commitment to timesharing that is now sadly lacking at RCI.


----------



## huestous (Mar 20, 2006)

Jennie said:
			
		

> *I strongly suspect that only a tiny percentage of RCI members are aware of RCI's rental activity. So to say that people who do not like what RCI is doing should terminate their membership is not really viable.*


I disagree with this type of statement.

If I am unhappy with a service that I have purchased (e.g. lawncare, health club, timeshare exchange company, etc), I could care less about the business or management details that are the root cause of that unhappiness.  I simply terminate the service.

Why would I spend my time and energy concerning myself over those details?  There are too many other choices out there.


----------



## Dave M (Mar 20, 2006)

I think you may have missed Jennie's point. 

If I interpret her remarks correctly, she is suggesting that so few RCI members are aware of the rental activity that membership cancellations by those who don't like the activity won't have much (if any) adverse impact on RCI.

I don't read that as suggesting that you keep your membership if you are unhappy.


----------



## geekette (Mar 20, 2006)

That, and not everyone knows there's a choice, which could easily keep many unhappy customers at RCI.

I didn't find any mention in the last few papers of the lawsuit, so I sent in a tip.  RCI has their giant HQ here.  People remember the de Haan's and still see Christel giving giant chunks of cash to worthy causes here.  Funny, you never hear about RCI "giving back to the community".  No hospital wings donated by Cendant either.


----------



## Bryan2319 (Mar 20, 2006)

[_Message deleted. TUG's rules prohibit messages of a commercial nature that offer or solicit sales, rentals, services, customers or clients - either directly or on behalf of another business._ Dave M, BBS Administrator]


----------



## marsha77 (Mar 20, 2006)

I have membership in RCI thru Fairfield.  When Fairfield sent me the papers for RCI membership in stated RCI membership terms on reverse, I turned the paper over...and the reverse side was blank.  I called Fairfield and they mailed me a microscopic copy of the terms.  Being that the print was sooooo small I could not read.  Anyway, my point is without tug, I would not have been aware of RCI renting weeks.  That certainly explains why I can see nothing available - except if I want to pay via Extra RCI Vacations, they seem to show up there!


----------



## copper (Mar 20, 2006)

[_Edited to delete message commenting on a moderator's edit of a previous post._ Dave M, BBS Administrator]


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 20, 2006)

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> Frill is in the eye of the beholder.  One person's steak is another person's sizzle.



But at the end of the day, it is what it is.  If you only eat sizzle all day, you will starve to death.

We are talking core business (timeshare exchanging) vs. everything else (frills).   Its time they paid attention to the core business.


----------



## NTHC (Mar 20, 2006)

RCI has always stated in their paperwork that they can do what they want with a deposited week.  The major problem I have is that they can do what they want with the week I give them, but I can't do what I want with the week they give me.


JMHO,
cindy


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 20, 2006)

NTHC said:
			
		

> RCI has always stated in their paperwork that they can do what they want with a deposited week.  The major problem I have is that they can do what they want with the week I give them, but I can't do what I want with the week they give me.
> 
> 
> JMHO,
> cindy



What little bit they have said is buried in the bowels of their fine print.  Not a very effective disclosure.

If nothing else, when members get their class action mailing, THAT should give much more publicity to what they are doing.

I think other exchange companies should hammer RCI hard on this issue and take their business, both resorts and individual members.  At least one is already raising the issue.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 20, 2006)

*Maybe not*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> If nothing else, when members get their class action mailing, THAT should give much more publicity to what they are doing.


Assumptions piled on theories topped with hopes. This lacks a firm foundation of proven facts.


----------



## NTHC (Mar 20, 2006)

Carolinian,
Not trying to discount anything that you are for....however, fine print is everywhere.  People don't read the fine print at the dentists office, the car dealership or before they say yes to the free weekend.  The disclaimer is always in the fine print.

And I am not for or against either side in this matter.  I have seen just as many people lie to get the free gifts as I have seen developers lie to sell.

I simply think the playing field should be even.  If RCI rents my week 52 in coastal CA for $1100 good for them.  If I rent the week I traded for in Myrtle Beach for $850 good for me.

They shouldn't have it both ways.

JMHO,
Cindy


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 20, 2006)

While I would take the position that nobody should rent exchange inventory, I agree that it is really hypocritical of RCI to cancel members accounts if they catch them renting exchanges when RCI puts its own fingers in the till many times every day doing exactly the same thing.




			
				NTHC said:
			
		

> Carolinian,
> Not trying to discount anything that you are for....however, fine print is everywhere.  People don't read the fine print at the dentists office, the car dealership or before they say yes to the free weekend.  The disclaimer is always in the fine print.
> 
> And I am not for or against either side in this matter.  I have seen just as many people lie to get the free gifts as I have seen developers lie to sell.
> ...


----------



## Walt (Mar 20, 2006)

*What fine print in the dentist's office?*



			
				NTHC said:
			
		

> Carolinian,
> Not trying to discount anything that you are for....however, fine print is everywhere. * People don't read the fine print at the dentists office*, the car dealership or before they say yes to the free weekend.  The disclaimer is always in the fine print.
> 
> And I am not for or against either side in this matter.  I have seen just as many people lie to get the free gifts as I have seen developers lie to sell.
> ...




*What fine print in the dentist's office?*  

Walt


----------



## Jennie (Mar 24, 2006)

Ding! an idea suddenly occurred to me. It's so simple, I must be getting semi-senile to not have thought of it years ago. Here is my dream scenerio:
RCI should be required to maintain a "paper trail" for each week deposited, and to make it available upon request to auditors and other interested parties such as the member who deposited it. If I deposit my 2007 President's week 2 bedroom lock-off unit in Ft. Lauderdale, I should be able to learn that another member subsequently received it in exchange for their deposit of a Wk. X 2 bedroom unit at ABC Resort in XYZ city. The actual names of the parties could be kept confidential.

If, on the other hand, RCI sold my week as an "Extra Holiday" or auctioned it off on SkyAuction, I should be able to find out the date of the transaction and the price paid by the recipient. Or at least independent auditors or members of a "watchdog committee" should be able to see the date and RCI's  reason for transferring my week out of the "weeks spacebank" and into a rental program. If RCI claims that they considered my week to be "excess inventory" or a week with anticipated "low demand," this could be challenged if it does not appear to be accurate (honest?) information. 

If my week was rented to allegedly pay for airline tickets or other travel services used to fulfill the request of an RCI Points member, then RCI should be required to specify exactly what week they deposited into the weeks spacebank to replace my week. However, since they obtain so many weeks from Points owners, and developers, I never did buy into their claim that they needed to swap any weeks from the weeks bank to accomplish this. 

With all the sophisticated computer programs available, it should be a simple process for RCI to track the activity on any week under their control. I'm certain that if "outsiders" had the right to look at what is being done with members' weeks or Points, and why, there would be far less "game playing."

Just because RCI has declared that it has the right to do as it wishes with deposited weeks, does not necessarily mean that a Court of Law will agree with them.


----------



## Walt (Mar 24, 2006)

*Is RCI living up to their Rental Statement?*



			
				Jennie said:
			
		

> With all the sophisticated computer programs available, it should be a simple process for RCI to track the activity on any week under their control. I'm certain that if "outsiders" had the right to look at what is being done with members' weeks or Points, and why, there would be far less "game playing."
> 
> Just because RCI has declared that it has the right to do as it wishes with deposited weeks, does not necessarily mean that a Court of Law will agree with them.



In this day and age of computers, paper trails for transactions are easy.  Getting RCI to make one may be another story.

RCI may win the law suit if RCI is doing what they say they are doing in this statement below.  But that is the Big Question.  *Are They?*


Walt   


RCI also said  this "A. Generally-Comments from a Vice President, RCI 

Many people have asked questions regarding our rental programs; where does the inventory come from? Is RCI renting weeks we have deposited for exchange?

Before I try and clarify what is a complex subject, let me say first of all that *we take this issue VERY seriously.* We are audited annually by Deloitte & Touche to ensure that *we are managing inventory consistent with our stated policies.* This is an area which is highly regulated in many states so we have to do it. But it's also true that we started this audit process long before we had to do it so we could confidently state that we have a fair exchange policy.

One of the reasons that many of RCI's new programs are so complex is because *we go to elaborate lengths to make sure we're doing everything we can to ensure that we're giving our Members the best possible opportunity to get the exchange they want.* We have a large Inventory Management department dedicated to delivering this. I know that this *sounds like spin* so far (it's not) so let me lay out the facts. 

*I can assure you that ALL of the weeks deposited by RCI Weeks members for exchange are available "EXCLUSIVELY" for exchange unless and until they fall within the "marketable inventory" category (at which point they are still available for exchange), which refers to weeks that members historically simply do not want or use. *


----------



## Gadabout (Mar 24, 2006)

Walt said:
			
		

> RCI also said  this "A. Generally-Comments from a Vice President, RCI
> 
> We are audited annually by Deloitte & Touche to ensure that *we are managing inventory consistent with our stated policies.* This is an area which is highly regulated in many states so we have to do it.
> 
> ...



There is 'way too much room for fudging on their part in that quote.


----------



## Walt (Mar 24, 2006)

*Explain?*



			
				Gadabout said:
			
		

> There is 'way too much room for fudging on their part in that quote.



So explain how?

Walt


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 24, 2006)

Walt said:
			
		

> *What fine print in the dentist's office?*
> 
> Walt


I have a hard time reading the fine print in my optomotrist's office.


----------



## Gadabout (Mar 24, 2006)

Walt said:
			
		

> *I can assure you that ALL of the weeks deposited by RCI Weeks members for exchange are available "EXCLUSIVELY" for exchange unless and until they fall within the "marketable inventory" category (at which point they are still available for exchange), which refers to weeks that members historically simply do not want or use. *



Unless everyone has access to exactly what rents and what doesn't, how would you know when or if something has fallen into (and can't get out of) the "marketable inventory" category?

Jennie made a good point about tracking the inventory from deposit to final disposition.


----------



## CaliDave (Mar 24, 2006)

Gadabout said:
			
		

> Jennie made a good point about tracking the inventory from deposit to final disposition.



I could see RCI agreeing to this and all for a $49 tracking fee


----------



## Barbeque (Mar 24, 2006)

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 28, 2006)

Has anyone gotten any more info on the Hanly Conroy suit against RCI that was supposed to have been filed in federal court in New Jersey?  It was supposed to be on their website last week, but isn't yet.  An attorney who posted that he is doing research for that suit has been asking for useful info on several timeshare sites.


----------



## Jennie (Mar 30, 2006)

One of our lesser known TUG members, who holds a high level executive position in a major, non-travel related corporation, spoke for over an hour with an investigator for the law firm planning the class action suit. TUG member X has IMHO a genius level intellect. She's the brightest person I've ever met. She has spent years acquiring an amazing amount of knowledge about almost every aspect of the timeshare industry, including the rental of weeks by RCI, which she considers to be outrageous. She discussed these issues in depth with the investigator. He listened attentively, asked good questions, and has been contacting other people she recommended. The firm is looking for New Jersey residents who have been "injured" by RCI's policies, to serve as lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit.


----------



## suskey (Mar 30, 2006)

I am a NJ resident and would love to help with this..however, how would I know if I had been 'injured'? I have been frustrated in searching for good exchanges, I have rented from RCI when I could not find the exchange I wanted...but Iam unsure how any of this is proof of RCI's guilt. WIsh I had something concrete to offer to this lawsuit..because I am outraged at RCI's practices.

Susan


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 30, 2006)

suskey said:
			
		

> I am a NJ resident and would love to help with this..however, how would I know if I had been 'injured'? I have been frustrated in searching for good exchanges, I have rented from RCI when I could not find the exchange I wanted...but Iam unsure how any of this is proof of RCI's guilt. WIsh I had something concrete to offer to this lawsuit..because I am outraged at RCI's practices.
> 
> Susan



Talk to them, and ask the lawyers working on this issue that question.  There was a link on tug but it got deleted.  It is still there on www.timesharetalk.co.uk and www.timeshareforums.com


----------



## geekette (Mar 30, 2006)

suskey said:
			
		

> I am a NJ resident and would love to help with this..however, how would I know if I had been 'injured'? I have been frustrated in searching for good exchanges, I have rented from RCI when I could not find the exchange I wanted...but Iam unsure how any of this is proof of RCI's guilt. WIsh I had something concrete to offer to this lawsuit..because I am outraged at RCI's practices.
> 
> Susan



If you had to rent *from RCI * when you couldn't find an exchange *with RCI*, seems to me that is a perfect description of the problem.  "I can't find it as an exchange, but they did let me rent from them."


----------



## Kauai Kid (Mar 31, 2006)

*Legal Eagles Take On RCI*

Probably posted in the wrong place but I thought it should be posted somewhere on TUG ASAP.

Following info from TimeSharing Today email:

RCI is facing two class action suits for weeks program members.  The claim is that RCI rents out the most desirable weeks, thus depleting the most desireable weeks from members who want to exchange.

Green Welling, LLP a San Francisco law firm can be reached at 415-477-6700 or gw@classcounsel.com

Another lawsuit in Federal Court (Murillo vs RCI case 06-1222) is being handled by four major law firms.  Contact Gilbert, Heintz and Randolf, LLP in Washington DC at 202-772-2200 or information@ghrdc.com

Time to go watch Matlock serve justice to the innocent.  

Sterling


----------



## daventrina (Apr 3, 2006)

*Mahalo!!!!*

Sterling,
Thanks for finding this and posting it. We'll be sure to be in contact with these folks.


----------



## Kauai Kid (Apr 3, 2006)

Dave and Trina:  Be sure and keep us TUGGERS informed.  Apparently there is another thread with the same info on TUG.  I don't have RCI and don't want them.

My one and only experience in suing someone was in small claims court and by golly the legal system worked.  We won.

Good luck--sounds like there are some big time firms going after RCI this time.

Sterling


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 3, 2006)

*Not about the real victims*

Samll claims is about justice. Class action, and corporate policies, are about dollars. Justice and fairness are nearly unknowns as both sides are in it for the $$$.  Don't expect anything good to come from that for the mere members of the class.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Apr 3, 2006)

*$ $ $ $*



			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> Justice and fairness are nearly unknowns as both sides are in it for the $$$.


As the famous attorney said to his client... 

_You have an excellent case.  Now, how much justice can you afford?_​
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 3, 2006)

I have heard from the lead plaintiff in one of the suits.  He has a real interest in reform, and is much better positioned to insist that the outcome of that case really involves reform.  Also one of the attorneys involved in an active timeshare exchanger himself and I suspect will also have an interest in seeing reform, as well as $$$$$ as part of the agenda.


----------



## melizzard (Apr 4, 2006)

*A little confused ...*

Hi everyone, I'm an RCI weeks member ... I've been reading this thread with great interest ... many of you have said that if we don't like the way RCI is doing business, we need to not exchange with them and not be members.  

Sorry to be so ignorant, but what are the options if you don't want to go to your home resort all the time?

Thanks so much,
Melissa


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 4, 2006)

In some cases, resorts are dual affiliated with Interval International, so it is an option.

For everyone, there are the independent exchange companies, where the individual member rather than the resort affiliates.  These include www.daelive.com , www.platinuminterchange.com , www.htse.net , www.tradingplaces.com , www.interchange-timeshare.com.au . and www.sfx-resorts.com .


----------



## melizzard (Apr 4, 2006)

*Thanks, Carolinian ...*

First of all, I assume you're from one of the Carolinas?  I'm from High Point, NC.  

These independent exchange companies ... do they work just like RCI in that you deposit your week then exchange for one of theirs?  Thanks, so much, for your patience with someone who has ever only known RCI!  

xxoo
Melissa


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 4, 2006)

Yes, I am from the eastern part of N.C., and, yes, the independents work the same way.  You deposit your week, get an exchange credit, and then use that for an exchange in the future.  Many of the independent exchange companies have representatives who will answer questions on forums at www.timeshareforums.com


----------



## daventrina (Apr 26, 2006)

[_Edited to delete message that solicited clients and which is not permitted on these forums._ Dave M, BBS Administrator]
In reference to TimeSharing Today:
RCI Weeks Program class action in New Jersey on behalf of RCI Weeks Program members.
http://www.classcounsel.com/news/rci.html


----------



## daventrina (Apr 27, 2006)

*Case in point...*

The following search has been running for nearly 5 months against the following deposit with no confirmed exchange.

RED WOLF LAKESIDE LODGE 04/16/2006  4/4 1 Bedroom 
Earliest Check-In Date 07/15/2006 Latest Check-In Date 07/16/2006
HAWAII: ISLAND OF HAWAII 		
0029, 0279, 0528, 2326, 4861, 4935, 5851, 5971, 6095, 6096, 6939 	


However, at many of the resorts that we have a search for we can rent a week ( BTW:for an amount much larger than the exchange fee that RCI can collect ). See the following:
Extra Vacation Search Results


Resort ID:  	0528
Resort Name: 	VACATION INTERNATIONALE SEA VILLAGE Kailua-Kona, HI, 
      Type Max Occ/Privacy Kitchen Check-in Date Price
	1 	4 / 4 	Full 	07/08/2006 	$693.49 	 
	1 	4 / 4 	Full 	07/15/2006 	$693.49 	 
	1 	4 / 4 	Full 	07/29/2006 	$693.49 	 
	1 	4 / 4 	Full 	08/05/2006 	$693.49

Resort ID:  	4908
Resort Name: 	MAUNA LOA VILLAGE BY THE SEA    See Reviews
  	KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII HI, USA
    Type  Max Occ/Privacy Kitchen Check-in Date Price

	2 	6 / 6 	Full 	07/07/2006 	$1,975.99 	 
	2 	6 / 6 	Full 	07/14/2006 	$1,975.99 	 
	2 	6 / 6 	Full 	07/21/2006 	$1,975.99 	 
	1 	4 / 4 	Full 	08/04/2006 	$1,177.99 	 
	2 	6 / 6 	Full 	08/04/2006 	$1,975.99 	

Resort ID:  	5971
Resort Name: 	FAIRFIELD HAWAII AT KONA HAWAIIAN RESORT
  	KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII HI, USA
     Type  Max Occ/Privacy Kitchen  Check-in Date Price

	2 	6 / 4 	Full 	07/07/2006 	$1,994.99 	 
	2 	6 / 4 	Full 	07/14/2006 	$1,994.99 	 
	2 	6 / 4 	Full 	07/21/2006 	$1,994.99 	 
	2 	6 / 4 	Full 	07/28/2006 	$1,994.99 	 
	2 	6 / 4 	Full 	08/04/2006 	$1,994.99

Resort ID:  	6456
Resort Name: 	SVC @ KONA COAST RESORT II 5 NIGHT   
  	KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII HI, USA
     Type  Max Occ/Privacy Kitchen Check-in Date Price

	1 	4 / 4 	Full 	07/02/2006 	$1,049.99 	 
	1 	4 / 4 	Full 	08/06/2006 	$1,049.99 	

Resort ID:  	6979
Resort Name: 	CLUB REGINA AT THE KONA REEF   
  	KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII HI, USA
     Type  Max Occ/Privacy Kitchen Check-in Date Price

	1 	4 / 2 	Full 	07/08/2006 	$1,119.99 	 
	1 	4 / 2 	Full 	07/15/2006 	$1,119.99 	 
	1 	4 / 2 	Full 	07/22/2006 	$1,119.99 	 
	1 	4 / 2 	Full 	07/29/2006 	$1,119.99 	 
	1 	4 / 2 	Full 	08/05/2006 	$1,119.99 	

RCI claims that they are weeks traded for cruise credits....
One of RCI's excuse  explination is here: http://www.tug2.net/advice/FAQ-AskRCI.htm#_Toc32570621


----------



## daventrina (Apr 27, 2006)

*No RCI for one year*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> In some cases, resorts are dual affiliated with Interval International, so it is an option.
> 
> For everyone, there are the independent exchange companies, where the individual member rather than the resort affiliates.  These include www.daelive.com , www.platinuminterchange.com , www.htse.net , www.tradingplaces.com , www.interchange-timeshare.com.au . and www.sfx-resorts.com .


We'll play, we just need to get EVERYONE to play. For one year, NO ONE deposits their week with RCI and they use an alternative. Bet that RCi would get the message.


----------



## Aldo (Apr 27, 2006)

Considering how BAD a deal the "exchange for cruise" thing really is compared to just buying a cruise, now RCI expects this member to actually believe that ALL 21 available Hawaii weeks in their system were actually exchanged for cruises????????

No doubt the occasional person will be unwise enough to do the exchange for cruise option, but EVERYBODY???

Come on.

When someone is lying, I much prefer those lies to at least be plausible.  Please.
Otherwise, it's simply insulting.


----------



## Walt (Apr 28, 2006)

Aldo said:
			
		

> Considering how BAD a deal the "exchange for cruise" thing really is compared to just buying a cruise, now RCI expects this member to actually believe that ALL 21 available Hawaii weeks in their system were actually exchanged for cruises????????
> 
> No doubt the occasional person will be unwise enough to do the exchange for cruise option, but EVERYBODY???
> 
> ...



Hi Aldo,

In the Ask RCI question that I asked about how can over 80 units at the Maui Embassy *show up as Rentals and NO units *were showing up as Exchanges when Maui Embassy is only Bulk Spacebanking Owner Exchange Weeks for the Prime Months of March, April and May, this is Madge's answer.

Madge did not deny the they were Owner's Spacebank Weeks.  Madge did not even say some were  Developer's Week.  So when the Maui Embassy said they were Owner's Spacebank Weeks, logic would tell us they are *only Owner's Spacebank Week. *


*Madge Wrote:*

The units offered in Extra Vacations (or a vendor such as SnapTravel) may not always be the specific units that were deposited for non-exchange transactions. For example, the member who requests a cruise exchange *may* be using a deposited week that was long ago assigned to another RCI member. When this is the case, an *equivalent unit* is taken in place of that member's deposited unit. Equivalence here is based on our standard Trading Power guidelines.

*I Wrote:*

I was told by the Embassy Maui that the deposit below were owners weeks made with a Bulk Spacebanking. The were not used for Cruises or any other Points program. I have not had one Weeks owner tell me that they can see these weeks when doing an Exchange Search. I used a week for an Weeks Exchanged Search that had Maximum Trade Value as told to me by a VC. I saw nothing. 

In all due respect to you. I know that you are just the messenger. But *please let RCI know that this is just not a believable answer. *

Please give me your take on what was told to me by the Embassy Maui. Your statement and the Embassy Maui's statement can not both be correct. *What possible timeshare week does RCI have that is equal to a Embassy Maui week in March, April, and May? The other Hawaii Resorts weeks are also being rented and have not been placed in the Exchange Pool either. So what is equal to a Hawaiian week in March, April, and May? *

JerseyGirl Wrote:

As an aside, I think II's policy of only allowing undeposited weeks to be exchanged toward cruises (where *only those specific weeks are then released to rental inventory) is much less likely to lend itself to the same suspicions and allegations.*

*Madge Wrote:*

The specific *details of our reconciliation process are proprietary *and I won't be able to share them. What you seem to be asking for is proof that what I'm saying is true. If I cannot share something, I will let you know that; however, *the information I do share is true to the very best of my knowledge. *

I find this last sentence interesting.


http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12717&highlight=Walt

*This is an part of an Email I received from the Maui Embassy*

_they have also acknowledged that their exchange agreement with each owner states that *they may use banked weeks for other purposes, including, marketing, staff resort site inspections and rental to name a few.*

I have also noted that you feel the practice of bulk banking to provide owners with better opportunities for exchanges doesn't seem to have the benefit that it once did. *Owners are still struggling to get back into their home resort, ie, the Embassy Ka'anapali Beach Resort; yet they have seen rental opportunities on the internet for their own resort.*_

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

If you believe that *RCI is Cherry Picking the best Resorts in Prime time *instead of using the Mud Week that were used for RCI's Points Program, please do 3 things.

1) Contract your Resort about this problem.  My resorts did not know.
2) Contact your HOA about this problem.  My HOAs did not know.
3) Contact RCI.

Money talks and Rental money makes more than Exchange money.  But at least, let RCI know we are not as Dumb and Gullible as they may think.

If we (TUG) really wanted to get this message across to RCI someone, could start a thread in the Exchange Forum directed toward RCI that states something like this.  *Stop Cherry Picking the Prime Time Resorts in Prime Time for your Rental Program. * 

Ask RCI to use the policy that JerseyGirl stated, of only allowing undeposited weeks to be exchanged toward cruises (where *only those specific weeks are then released to rental inventory) is much less likely to lend itself to the same suspicions and allegations.*  In other words, the week used for the points programs is the one they rent.

I will not start this thread because some see me as being Anti RCI.  I am not.  I have no problem with my past and present exchanges.  But, I am not sure what will happen in the future.  I think more and more RCI members are seeing that exchanges they once were able to get, are no longer available.  I think the result would be better if someone else would start this thread. 

Walt


----------



## daventrina (Apr 29, 2006)

*Extra Vacation Week*

While we're still unable to get a confirmed exchange, we decided to rent from the "fine folks" at RCI. Turns out that it cost less to rent the week than use the exchange. So, we'll use the week to go to Coranado.

Search Against the following Deposit
00021  	RED WOLF LAKESIDE LODGE  	3991  	13  	04/16/2006  	1  	4/4
(_A spring holiday ski week at the highest demand RCI Lake Tahoe Resort._)
Search Criteria
HAWAII: ISLAND OF HAWAII  	07/15/2006  	07/17/2006
0029, 0279, 0528, 1677, 2326, 4861, 4908, 4935, 5851, 5971, 6095, 6096, 6939, 6979, 8243 	07/15/2006 	07/17/2006

You have Held the following Extra Vacation Week:

Resort Name:  	VACATION INTERNATIONALE SEA VILLAGE  0528
Location: 	KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII, HI, USA
Max Occ/Privacy: 	4/4
Unit Type: 	1
Kitchen: 	Full
Type: 	Extra Vacation
Dates: 	07/15/2006
Extra Vacation Price: 	$693.49
Comparison Prices. 
Hotels.com   $1113.00
Expedia.com $1,238.23
SunQuest $1210.28

Exchange Costs
Maint. Fees/Taxes $550
RCI Exc. Fee 149
Total Exchange $699

RCI also put RWL up for rent. 
Red Wolf Lakeside Lodge 
3991 Tahoe Vista, CA, USA  4/4  06/04/2006 - 06/11/2006 $869.99 
So, you cant exchange into either the deposit resort or the requested reosrts, but can rent weeks at both.
(We're almost absolutly certain that RWL didn't give the weeks to RCI to rent, but will check with the resort)

RCI income increase is $544 for Sea Village and $720 for Red Wolf for an income increase of $1264 because they rented the weeks instead of exchanging them.


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 29, 2006)

*Re: Extra Vacation Week*



			
				daventrina said:
			
		

> While we're still unable to get a confirmed exchange, we decided to rent from the "fine folks" at RCI. Turns out that it cost less to rent the week than use the exchange. So, we'll use the week to go to Coranado.
> 
> Search Against the following Deposit
> 00021  	RED WOLF LAKESIDE LODGE  	3991  	13  	04/16/2006  	1  	4/4
> ...



That wouldn't appear to be a qualified exchange on a week per week basis. An April week in Tahoe for a July Hawaii?  You'd be getting the best of that deal. 

But you did get it as a rental and now you can still use your Tahoe week. RCI did alright by you even if you don't like rentals.  If you had points you could have given up more to make that upgrade but weeks, being fixed as they are, there is no way to "up value" a deposit.  This has nothing to do with renting (although you benefitted from it as without it you didn't have a qualified trade) and everything to do with perceived value of a deposit that is too high.


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 29, 2006)

They are looking at the big picture, the impact on the overall exchanging system, not using tunnel vision for their only personal situation on this one transaction.  If exchanging is to have a future more of us should look at the overall impact instead of using tunnel vision directed only at our own personal situation.

Rentals by exchnage companies to the general public from exchange deposits are a clear and present danger to the future of exchanging.  They are a flagrant conflict of interest that simply should not be allowed.


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 29, 2006)

I'm looking at the big picture as well. Forget the renting - this is an all too typical case where the fixed and 7 day nature of the old RCI system collides with what owners really want to do - get the trade they desire.  Due to a deposit that isn't qualified they either don't get it and have to settle for something else or, in this case, choose to look to the rental world (adding cash) to the equation to get to the value of the desired time. If they were in points they would have another option - use more points.  In far too many cases we have people complaining that they can't get a trade and then blaming rentals as the reason. The real reason is they are in a system that cannot properly adjust for the varied values of deposits and thus the trade they want sits there unclaimed because no one with the necessary value to claim it has requested it. So that time could go to waste, it can be offered at a fair value in points OR it can be offered at a fair value as a rental. That should be the last choice for RCI or any exchange company but it is more reasonable than simply giving a much higher value week for week exchange to any owner that comes along. If that was done it would undermine the support for those high value weeks far worse than rentals can. The better weeks owners will hear about the deals, sell off those good weeks and join the bottom dwellers who can claim those weeks at will with far lower costs.Just like you worry will happen with rentals. The difference is that rentals can be controlled. Don't deposit or deposit in a system where the different values are better accounted for (points). The collaspe started to happen back in the heydays of the SA values and could have killed the weeks system forever if allowed to continue unabated.


----------



## spike (Apr 29, 2006)

*Re: Is RCI living up to their Rental Statement?*



			
				Walt said:
			
		

> RCI also said  this "A. Generally-Comments from a Vice President, RCI
> Many people have asked questions regarding our rental programs; where does the inventory come from? Is RCI renting weeks we have deposited for exchange? Before I try and clarify what is a complex subject,  We are audited annually by Deloitte & Touche to ensure that


*Enron redux....*


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 29, 2006)

When an exchange company rents prime weeks on a large scale, it decreases the supply, and therefore makes exchanges harder to get.

It is Points that cannot adjust for the varied values of deposits.  Its calcified numbers cannot adjust for constantly changing supply and demand factors.  Its overaveraging assigns the same point total to weeks of widely different values, unlike Weeks which has the ability to properly value each individual week.  Heck, Points is so rigid it can't even properly assign the Thanksgiving bump in the years that Thanksgiving falls on week 46 (they still give it to week 47 even when that is the dog week after Thanksgiving).  Then there is the price fixing by giving resorts still in developer sales, overbuilt areas, and some other favorites inflated point values.

The Weeks 45-day window opens the distressed short shelf life inventory to most members.  These are weeks that the market has said are not worth the value that had been assigned to them.  It is NOT a trade up.  Last minute deposits are assigned a much lower trading power, so it just makes sense that remaining spacebank inventory at the last minute also be assigned a lower trading power.

As to SA, some of the owners of overbuilt areas like to harp on that, but lets look at the realities.  Trading power is driven by supply and demand, and SA simply has a better supply / demand curve than Florida (of course there are some parts of Florida like Key West or Sanibel/Captiva that have much better demand vs supply than, say, overbuilt Orlando and would do much better than the usual Florida position)

The European version of the RCI Directory on page 25 has a Regional Availibility table that tells the tale.  It ranks each month in various resort areas as to spacebank availibility on the following scale:
1= limited availibiity / very highly demanded
2= less availibility / highly demanded
3= good availibility
4= very good availibility

Florida rates as follows:
1 has 2 months
2 has 3 months
3 has 4 months
4 has 3 months

South Africa rates as follows:
1 has 5 months
2 has 3 months
3 has 4 months
4 has 0 months

With a better supply / demand curve, OF COURSE SA trades easily into many places in Florida, especially overbuilt Orlando.

The system is not knocked out of whack by letting SA trade into Florida.  It is knocked out of whack by RCI Points price fixing and assigning point values that are too high for an area with an ''abundant excess of supply'' , as RCI's Madge described Orlando.  Bootleg also told us that the two resorts with the biggest excess of supply in the entire RCI system were both Gold Crowns in Orlando.

Hey, Orlando IS a nice place, but there IS such a situation as too much of a good thing.






			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> I'm looking at the big picture as well. Forget the renting - this is an all too typical case where the fixed and 7 day nature of the old RCI system collides with what owners really want to do - get the trade they desire.  Due to a deposit that isn't qualified they either don't get it and have to settle for something else or, in this case, choose to look to the rental world (adding cash) to the equation to get to the value of the desired time. If they were in points they would have another option - use more points.  In far too many cases we have people complaining that they can't get a trade and then blaming rentals as the reason. The real reason is they are in a system that cannot properly adjust for the varied values of deposits and thus the trade they want sits there unclaimed because no one with the necessary value to claim it has requested it. So that time could go to waste, it can be offered at a fair value in points OR it can be offered at a fair value as a rental. That should be the last choice for RCI or any exchange company but it is more reasonable than simply giving a much higher value week for week exchange to any owner that comes along. If that was done it would undermine the support for those high value weeks far worse than rentals can. The better weeks owners will hear about the deals, sell off those good weeks and join the bottom dwellers who can claim those weeks at will with far lower costs.Just like you worry will happen with rentals. The difference is that rentals can be controlled. Don't deposit or deposit in a system where the different values are better accounted for (points). The collaspe started to happen back in the heydays of the SA values and could have killed the weeks system forever if allowed to continue unabated.


----------



## beejaybeeohio (Apr 30, 2006)

I find it quite interesting that every time I log onto RCI a popup encouraging members to deposit covers the screen and that the same message is on the banner atop each page!  Is desperation setting in?

Without deposits there will be nothing for RCI to rent out.  If RCI members who are depositing prime areas do not get their desired trades, why would they continue to do so?

Barb


----------



## short (Apr 30, 2006)

I think most RCI member who follow the proper procedures are getting their desired trades. Deposit early, request early, be flexible, deposit a desireable week.

Those of us who have blue weeks, want HI or So Cal in the summer,want to find that at 3 months before checkin, and want specific checkin dates are out of luck.  The days of tradeups are history.  However one persons trash is another persons treasure still hold true.  September in the mountains or Florida beach could still be a great vacation for some.

In addition, most people do what they have always done.  Including depositing there week and not using it.  A large share of deposits are never used at all.

Short


----------

