# RCIs reponse to cash plus option trades



## lgreenspan (Aug 29, 2007)

I emailed RCI asking them to explain the new Cash plus option. Here is the response.

Hello,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Upon review, we were advised some options were tested over the weekend 
by our technical staff.  These options appeared online in error.  We 
regret any inconvenience this may have caused.

Thank you for your interest in RCI.

Kind regards,

Michelle Bobo
Customer Communications Specialist
RCI North America


----------



## PerryM (Aug 29, 2007)

lgreenspan said:


> I emailed RCI asking them to explain the new Cash plus option. Here is the response.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> ...



Was a dry run with probably folks scattered around the nation testing the option for specific accounts.  Different computers, operating systems, and browsers.  Then claim all a mistake and review the results.

SOP.


----------



## philemer (Aug 29, 2007)

I saw that option while surfing this weekend. Interesting. Another way for RCI to make some extra cash? Let you exchange your "dog", plus cash, for a GC "tiger". 

Phil


----------



## normalrog (Aug 29, 2007)

*Lunatics Run Amok*



lgreenspan said:


> Upon review, we were advised some options were tested over the weekend by our technical staff.  These options appeared online in error.  We regret any inconvenience this may have caused.



Is ANYBODY managing this operation?  What an ungodly mess RCI is.


----------



## grest (Aug 29, 2007)

that funny little orange symbol is still there this morning, though I didn't see the exchange plus cash feature...if they're testing it, they're seriously considering it..
Connie


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 29, 2007)

Swell, another ''enhancement'' from RCI and we all know what that word means in the business PR world - higher prices or reduced services or both.  Frequent Flyers are very familiar with ''enhancements''.


----------



## Dave*H (Aug 29, 2007)

lgreenspan said:


> These options appeared online in error.


The only error is that they let the cat out of the bag before they were ready to go live with the changes.  You can bet that if they've put enough IT resources on it to develop a test implementation, they are pretty serious about making the change.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 29, 2007)

*Ouch, a sharp stick in the eye....*

Isn’t this what most folks want?  “Soak the rich”, in this case it’s “Soak the folks wanting an upgrade”, with the “tax” going to the powers that be in both cases.

RCI Weeks is simply starting the migration towards RCI Points in the fact that if you want a bigger, better, more desirable unit you must pay for it.

It’s just fair play.  Now to those of us who use Weeks for free upgrades this is going to be a sharp stick in the eye.

II; remember, watch RCI for a few years before you do the same - see what happens then decide.

P.S.
And to those of you who think RCI will sit by idly while being sued, this is just a glimpse of what we members can expect as RCI makes us pay for those legal bills.

Here's a good question - would you demand the lawyers stop all lawsuits if RCI held back on this upgrade fee for 1 year?  It probably is too late but something to think about as more lawsuits get filed and more "Gosh a mistake" start to pop up.

I'd consider this "mistake" a fair warning of reprisals.

P.P.S.
Just as corporations don't pay taxes (they just pass the tax bill back to the consumer) they don't pay for lawsuits either - they just cook up new fees to pay those legal bills.  RCI is a monopoly and is free to do as it pleases.

Poking a sleeping tiger with a sharp stick has consequences.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 29, 2007)

Dave_H said:


> The only error is that they let the cat out of the bag before they were ready to go live with the changes.  You can bet that if they've put enough IT resources on it to develop a test implementation, they are pretty serious about making the change.



No doubt. 

The non-phone operations offices of RCI must be like a giant frat house or a scene from Beavus and Butthead. There seems to be no control, common sense or reasonab adult presence that I can detect.   Might be a great place to party, er, work, huh?


----------



## Judy (Aug 29, 2007)

PerryM said:


> RCI Weeks is simply starting the migration towards RCI Points in the fact that if you want a bigger, better, more desirable unit you must pay for it.


but in RCI points, those who own highly demanded units get more Points. In exchange + cash there is no bonus for strong traders.


> It’s just fair play.  Now to those of us who use Weeks for free upgrades this is going to be a sharp stick in the eye.


It isn't fair play for those who own strong traders and/or resorts with high V.E.P.'s.  Not only will the owners of August studios in Death Valley be able to buy up all the good weeks, but the high V.E.P.'s will likely still be prevented from trading down - leaving NOTHING for them


----------



## Hoc (Aug 29, 2007)

philemer said:


> I saw that option while surfing this weekend. Interesting. Another way for RCI to make some extra cash? Let you exchange your "dog", plus cash, for a GC "tiger".
> 
> Phil




My guess is, give it a few years.  Eventually, every resort you will be trading *out* of will be a "dog," and every one you are trading *into* will be a tiger.  In other words, you won't be able to make a trade without paying extra cash above and beyond the trading fee.  Kind of like Delta does now with its mileage tickets.  Virtually none are made available, except at the premium rate.

I haven't traded or deposited with RCI for almost two years now, and given its direction, I doubt I will be doing it again anytime soon.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Aug 29, 2007)

I wouldn't be surprised if where this is headed is RCI gives you a certain number of points for your week that would be redeemable for cash after 1 year of non-exchange.

Then, you use your points plus cash for an exchange.

If RCI just offers all weeks to every owner and lets anyone trade up with cash, then that will lead to EVERY weeks exchange being a trade down.  You either take a trade down or pay extra cash. 

I can't see how RCI could do this in a way that didn't lead to tremendous backlash from its depositers.  But, there has been no impedence to what they have done to date.  So, maybe they believe their power is limitless over timeshare owners.


----------



## DaveNV (Aug 29, 2007)

That's interesting.  One of the questions I had asked Madge awhile ago is if there was a way to exchange two less valuable weeks for one better week.  She told me RCI didn't have a plan like that.  Sounds like somebody kicked some ideas around, and developed a new way to get to the same result. No surprise that it'd require extra cash.

But it also shows that trading power is arbitrary, and changeable at RCI's whim.  I gotta say, folks, I'm becoming less enraptured with RCI all the time...

Dave


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 29, 2007)

*For RCI its cash, cash and more cash. Not for you - for them.*



jeepguynw said:


> That's interesting.  One of the questions I had asked Madge awhile ago is if there was a way to exchange two less valuable weeks for one better week.  She told me RCI didn't have a plan like that.  Sounds like somebody kicked some ideas around, and developed a new way to get to the same result. No surprise that it'd require extra cash.



The problem is it seems to be one way. If you are going to offer trades up for more cash then the depositor of that trade up should be getting cash back.  of course that doesn't feed the RCI coffers so you can be pretty sure thats not on the plate.  



jeepguynw said:


> But it also shows that trading power is arbitrary, and changeable at RCI's whim.
> 
> Dave



And this just occurred to you?  That has been the problem with weeks since the Dehaan days. You throw your week (cash) in and only they can tell you what you get back. You wouldn't shop at many stores that used that process would you?


----------



## DaveNV (Aug 29, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by jeepguynw
> But it also shows that trading power is arbitrary, and changeable at RCI's whim.
> 
> ...




It didn't *just* occur to me, but it does demonstrate pretty blatantly how depositors have no control over what is given to RCI to use.  

I'm still reasonably new to this whole timeshare game, but in the beginning I was told/sold on the idea that RCI was where I could exchange my week for something else/better/decent/different.  TUG reviews and older posts showed that fantastic trades were being done with weeks much like what I own.  But when I tried it myself, I was getting something quite a bit less than what those folks got.  And the Last Minute (and whatever) Vacations list continued to show these outstanding resorts I never got the chance to see.  I tried to work within the RCI system, but quickly came to the conclusion that they are certainly not doing me any favors.  Alternate exchange companies seem to be trying much harder, and at this time I have no plans to renew my RCI membership.  It's a good thing I like the places I own, so I can continue to vacation there, since exchanging away seems to be such a nuisance.

But I should also say, with all the great rentals that are available to anyone, I'm now considering just selling what I own, and renting what I want, when I want to go there.  Why carry the financial burden if the end result is the same?  I don't have kids or extended family I'm trying to entertain, so don't need that whole "make a family memory" and "leave it to your kids" hype from the TS sellers.  For me, TSing is all about great vacations for me, not for someone else.  And I still want the best bang for the buck.   

Dave


----------



## BocaBum99 (Aug 29, 2007)

I do believe that the entire exchange market is moving toward a rental exchange model.  You rent your week, you rent someone else's in return.  However, it will done in an exchange company framework so you don't have to pay income tax on the rentals.  

Why?  Because the rental market is the most efficient possible way to map supply and demand.  And, it attracts new participants into the market.

If there were an efficient rental market where you knew what your week was worth and you could get instant cash, there wouldn't be a need for an exchange system.


----------



## geekette (Aug 29, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> No doubt.
> 
> The non-phone operations offices of RCI must be like a giant frat house or a scene from Beavus and Butthead. There seems to be no control, common sense or reasonab adult presence that I can detect.   Might be a great place to party, er, work, huh?



Sure, if you think that spending every Saturday night there doing 'system maintenance' is your dream job.  blech.


----------



## geekette (Aug 29, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if where this is headed is RCI gives you a certain number of points for your week that would be redeemable for cash after 1 year of non-exchange.
> 
> Then, you use your points plus cash for an exchange.
> 
> ...



I don't believe it will be redeemable for cash.  It will be for a credit in Amount $X that they hope you will never use.  I don't see them dispensing cash.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 29, 2007)

*"Mistakes" are for amateurs and that's not RCI...*



Judy said:


> but in RCI points, those who own highly demanded units get more Points. *In exchange + cash there is no bonus for strong traders*.
> 
> It isn't fair play for those who own strong traders and/or resorts with high V.E.P.'s.  Not only will the owners of August studios in Death Valley be able to buy up all the good weeks, but the high V.E.P.'s will likely still be prevented from trading down - leaving NOTHING for them



Correct, this has never been a discussion about fair exchanges but RCI's contribution to their stock holders.

The way to "play" the RCI "game" is do buy a cheap timeshare, and upgrade into something worth much much more.  Why folks deposit very nice and highly desirable units is beyond me.  They will find that they just have too much Trading Power (TP) and everything is a trade down.

RCI apparently is going to "help" the person who deposits a unit with high TP by not charging an upgrade fee.  They should, of course, get the upgrade fee of the person who eventually exchanges into their unit - that will never happen.

This new Upgrade Scheme is just a way for RCI to get more money - nothing wrong with that.  However, the timing is very suspicious - RCI could have done this 10 years ago.  That's why I believe it is a way to raise funds to pay off the legal fees of lawsuits.

The reason we see "Mistakes" is very simple - *RCI can now demonstrate that this fee has been in the pipeline BEFORE they lose a lawsuit and have to find ways to pay for the legal fees*.  Look for more "Mistakes" with other fee schemes to demonstrate that they can implement these fund raisers any time they want and not be criticized by lawyers/courts for making the membership pay for the lawyer's new BMW's and beach front condos in Maui.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Aug 29, 2007)

jeepguynw said:


> I'm still reasonably new to this whole timeshare game, but in the beginning I was told/sold on the idea that RCI was where I could exchange my week for something else/better/decent/different.  TUG reviews and older posts showed that fantastic trades were being done with weeks much like what I own.  But when I tried it myself, I was getting something quite a bit less than what those folks got.



Dave - think for a moment about what you've observed here.

Putting the same thing in different words, you were sold on the idea of timesharing because you saw that people were consistently getting out of the system something that was more valuable than what they were putting in.  Who wouldn't want to be part of a system such as that? 

In other words, there was/is a clear market inefficiency operating here.  Set aside all consideration of monopoly, contracts of adhesion, unfair business practices, lawsuits, etc.  From simple economic considerations, that situation wasn't going to continue.

***

Now let's say that you're running a store, and it becomes clear to you that you are letting inventory go to customers, but that inventory is more valuable than whatever it is the customers are giving you?  What are you as a businessman going to do???

You're going to find a way to capture more of that value for yourself, right??

For the life of me, I have a hard time understanding why people are so shocked that exchange companies are making changes to their operations to bring the price people pay more in line with the value of what they are taking out.

We've openly recognized - nay, proclaimed and even shouted from the mountain tops - our consistent success in exploiting the system.  Then we're amazed and dumbfounded that the company does something about that situation.

**

My approach has always been that I would use an exchange company's services as long as I perceived I was getting adequate value back for what I was surrendering (both in the time given to the exchange company and the cost of doing business with the exchange company).  When that was no longer the case, I would simply stop using the company.

I stopped using RCI because for our purposes RCI is simply no longer cost-effective.  I don't for one minute begrudge them the the freedom to try to capture for themselves more of the value that might have been going out the door with their product. I think that every business should have the freedom to set prices, policies, and buying conditions as they see fit.  If they do smart things they succeed and make money and have happy customers.  If they do dumb things, they lose money and have upset customers.  

But it's their freedom to do so, just as it's our freedom to sit at our keyboards and whine, moan, complain, argue, and inform each other.

***

Freedom's great.  We ought to believe in it enough to fight as hard for it for our adversaries as we would for our friends.


----------



## DaveNV (Aug 29, 2007)

Steve, I totally agree with your points.  What bugs me most about RCI is the blatant way they're taking advantage of the very people who give them life.  It's one thing to screw over a stranger, (morally wrong, but typical in business), but when it's your own (paying) membership?  That's wrong on a completely different level.

Any number of posts here have blasted RCI's practices, and I've taken most all of them with a grain of salt.  Points-lovers often bash weeks-owners with their air of superiority, "nyah, nyah, we're better than you are" attitudes, their flexibility of use, and how a lowly weeks-owner will never be able to get what they want because they don't own points.  The weeks-owners try to defend themselves in their best schoolyard voice, with "Oh yeah?  Well I can trade for a better place for my next vacation!"  But the truth is they probably CAN'T trade for something better.  RCI won't LET them.

And that is the core of my beef with RCI.  I'm willing to absorb their increasing costs, and pay fee after fee to exchange something that should be a simple process.  But then to slap me in the face and tell me that my week that wasn't good enough to trade before would suddenly be a perfect trade *IF* I want to grease a few RCI palms in the process?  No way!  That smacks of extortion, usury, and rotten-apple, er, "ness."   

So I'm done with RCI now.  You TUG folks continue to open my eyes to the way things truly are, and even though I don't much care for the view, I'm glad I'm taking a look.

Anybody wanna buy a timeshare?  I think it's time to start renting instead.

Dave


----------



## cr4909 (Aug 29, 2007)

philemer said:


> . . .Another way for RCI to make some extra cash? Let you exchange your "dog", plus cash, for a GC "tiger . . .





Judy said:


> It isn't fair play for those who own strong traders and/or resorts with high V.E.P.'s.  Not only will the owners of August studios in Death Valley be able to buy up all the good weeks, but the high V.E.P.'s will likely still be prevented from trading down - leaving NOTHING for them . . .





Hoc said:


> . . .  In other words, you won't be able to make a trade without paying extra cash above and beyond the trading fee. . .



It's entertaining to watch how an unexplained "exchange + cash" icon can turn into a near certainty that RCI will charge all users a premium fee to upgrade into that 2 BD, GC, or whatever.  And not too long ago it seemed that Points-for-Deposit was history, as well, according to some Tuggers.  Now I no longer use RCI for exchanges (my only week I use PFD to get points on it) and I personally don't care one way or the other, but it doesn't seem likely that even RCI would do something this blatant.  However, I'm not denying that this may be the case (hey, anything's possible with RCI), but I wouldn't spend much time or energy worrying about this new "development".

As stated previously by others in the "Where do all the unused weeks go?" threads, the weeks system is inherently flawed and must be subsidized to keep it afloat because of all those dog deposits that go unused.  So RCI needs more inventory from developers and other sources but those developer weeks may be drying up as they find better options than banking them with RCI.  So what to do?

It seems more likely that the "exchange + cash" may apply to developer weeks (like those 5-night options) and/or hotel stays.  Did anyone notice all the Wyndham hotels that show up in the RCI directory?  These are definitely not timeshares and do occaisonally show up on Extra Vacations for rentals but never as exchanges.  I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we started seeing some weekly hotel stays at a reduced price with an exchange, much the same way that cruises are made available.  Of course, when you factor in the MF's, it is hardly a bargain, and you'd probably be better looking elsewhere, unless you're going to lose the week anyway.  This may make RCI look better (on the surface, of course) if they are touting new availability at non-traditional venues.  And if this is the case, they'll undoubtedly tout this is a great enhancement for Weeks members (much in the same way that they are promising this for Points members).


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Aug 29, 2007)

cr4909 said:


> Did anyone notice all the Wyndham hotels that show up in the RCI directory?  These are definitely not timeshares and do occaisonally show up on Extra Vacations for rentals but never as exchanges.  I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we started seeing some weekly hotel stays at a reduced price with an exchange, much the same way that cruises are made available.  Of course, when you factor in the MF's, it is hardly a bargain, and you'd probably be better looking elsewhere, unless you're going to lose the week anyway.  This may make RCI look better (on the surface, of course) if they are touting new availability at non-traditional venues.  And if this is the case, they'll undoubtedly tout this is a great enhancement for Weeks members (much in the same way that they are promising this for Points members).



Non-timeshare exchanges have been in the RCI system for some time, most likely from developer deposits.  Several years ago (when I was actively searching for western NA ski weeks) RCI regularly offered me an exchange that was a 5-night stay at Fairmont in eastern BC.


----------



## dioxide45 (Aug 29, 2007)

PerryM said:


> This new Upgrade Scheme is just a way for RCI to get more money - nothing wrong with that.  However, the timing is very suspicious - RCI could have done this 10 years ago.  That's why I believe it is a way to raise funds to pay off the legal fees of lawsuits.



That isn't necessarily the case. There is constantly a drive within any publicly traded company to show quarter over quarter growth. If they don't show growth, then their stock price goes down. If it goes down they reduce the value for the stockholder (the people they work for). Then the stock holders sell (or they vote out the board) and stock prices drop further. They must show constant growth to stay ahead. They have saturated the market and can't really bring in more revenue without thinking up new ways to bring in revenue. They don't want to increase annual fees or exchange fees because this would be a blatant impact on the customer, so they think of other things that may be less noticable by the customer.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 30, 2007)

RCI will start a migration, alright, but only slightly to RCI Points.  More will migrate to bailing out of timeshare, using what they own, renting on local rental markets, and to other exchange companies.

It would only be fair play if RCI at the same time gave a cash rebate to those who accepted a trade down, and we all know that will never happen.

And come to think about it, thinking exchangers should already be starting to migrate to other exchange companies.  How many more shakedowns from RCI can we stand?



PerryM said:


> Isn’t this what most folks want?  “Soak the rich”, in this case it’s “Soak the folks wanting an upgrade”, with the “tax” going to the powers that be in both cases.
> 
> RCI Weeks is simply starting the migration towards RCI Points in the fact that if you want a bigger, better, more desirable unit you must pay for it.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Aug 30, 2007)

*Right on....*



Carolinian said:


> RCI will start a migration, alright, but only slightly to RCI Points.  More will migrate to bailing out of timeshare, using what they own, renting on local rental markets, and to other exchange companies.
> 
> It would only be fair play if RCI at the same time gave a cash rebate to those who accepted a trade down, and we all know that will never happen.
> 
> And come to think about it, thinking exchangers should already be starting to migrate to other exchange companies.  How many more shakedowns from RCI can we stand?




And this is how it should be - consumers making voluntary decisions that are in THEIR best interests is how Capitalism works.  We maximize our investment in something and forget about others.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 30, 2007)

PerryM said:


> And this is how it should be - consumers making voluntary decisions that are in THEIR best interests is how Capitalism works.  We maximize our investment in something and forget about others.



The problem for timesharers is that in this business there is also a third entity involved - the HOA's.  Our individual choices driven by the exchange company actions can dramatically impact them, which in turn impacts us individual timeshare owners as m/f's so skyward to compensate for the bailouts.  Forgetting the impact on HOA's and looking at this as only owners and exchange companies maximizing their situations is simplistic and shortsighted.

The ''just don't use them'' argument from the usual RCI cheering section is nothing but putting ones head in the sand and hoping things work out.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Aug 30, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> The problem for timesharers is that in this business there is also a third entity involved - the HOA's.  Our individual choices driven by the exchange company actions can dramatically impact them, which in turn impacts us individual timeshare owners as m/f's so skyward to compensate for the bailouts.  Forgetting the impact on HOA's and looking at this as only owners and exchange companies maximizing their situations is simplistic and shortsighted.
> 
> The ''just don't use them'' argument from the usual RCI cheering section is nothing but putting ones head in the sand and hoping things work out.



I hate to tell you this, but Adam Smith was right.  Consumers acting in their own self interest has proven to be the single best model for economic growth ever envisioned.  Karl Marx was proven wrong long ago.

Timesharing is fine as an industry and is growing tremendously.  All the talk of its demise is unnecessary gloom and doom.  For every person who bails out, 2 join the game.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 30, 2007)

*Would you "bail out" from Sunterra, Marriott, DVC, etc?*



BocaBum99 said:


> Timesharing is fine as an industry and is growing tremendously.  All the talk of its demise is unnecessary gloom and doom.  For every person who bails out, 2 join the game.



It seems the majority "bailing out" are at smaller, older resorts that were built on the idea that RCI/II would support the poor times with free upgrades. No doubt those owners, most paying the full fare in annual fees thus subsidizing the premium time owners, are disillusioned now that the free upgrades have slowed to a trickle.  I'd bail too if I owned that type of week. 

You don't hear of many mini-system or high end time owners "bailing" as they like what they bought and it has it's own value without needing upgrade support . I can see where a standalone, older resort could see the current trends as a death sentence unless they take tough steps to make that poor time a value for the owners without outside help. It won't be easy. Some will fail or the owners of the only valuable time will find their fees skyrocketing.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Aug 30, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> The ''just don't use them'' argument from the usual RCI cheering section is nothing but putting ones head in the sand and hoping things work out.


I'm assuming that I'm part of your RCI "cheering section" since I've been lumped there before and I previously made the libertarian "just don't use them" argument in this and previous threads.  That's kind of amusing, considering that I'm such an advocate of RCI that I'm one of the ones that walked away.  

If you're going to continue to impeach your logic by resorting to _ad hominem_ name-calling, don't you think it would help your case if you at least go that down correctly??

****

I don't cheer for RCI.  I cheer for people (and goverrments) giving others the right to live their lives without interference, to make decisions that they feel are best, and living with the consequences of their decisions.  I boo for people who feel that they need to meddle in the affairs of others just because that other person might do something that offends them

I espouse liberty in both the bedroom and the boardroom.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 30, 2007)

*HOA's are the answer....*



Carolinian said:


> The problem for timesharers is that in this business there is also a third entity involved - the HOA's.  Our individual choices driven by the exchange company actions can dramatically impact them, which in turn impacts us individual timeshare owners as m/f's so skyward to compensate for the bailouts.  Forgetting the impact on HOA's and looking at this as only owners and exchange companies maximizing their situations is simplistic and shortsighted.
> 
> The ''just don't use them'' argument from the usual RCI cheering section is nothing but putting ones head in the sand and hoping things work out.




Many/most home/condo owners know of their HOA if they live in a subdivision.  That HOA is elected by the owners and represent them – the rules they pass and enforce come from the membership/owners.

New resorts have a high concentration of developer owned units and the developer runs the show – that’s how timeshares work.  The HOA can delete, change, or add exchange companies if they want.  This is NOT a problem for the exchange companies.

Why is it that only external forces like attorneys, Attorney Generals, politicians, courts, etc must be brought in to fix every problem that is easily corrected by the existing HOA structure?  I’ve never understood that need.

To me the courts and lawyers are trying to play management and they just don't have the credentials to do it.


It's real simple; the HOA adds RCI Points and II and other independent exchange companies for their members/owners - let folks decide which exchange to use.


----------



## Mel (Aug 30, 2007)

And to add to that - if the HOA sees large numbers of members bailing, they have the power to change the structure of the program at their resort.  Yes, it might require them to make dramatic changes to their bylaws, which might require a significant percentage of the membership to go along, but they can do it.

One possibility is to end the subsidy of the better weeks - make the owners pay maintenance based on the value of their week, like is done in many mini-systems.  They will certainly get the votes of the people who own "lesser" weeks.  The way to get the owners of the peak weeks to agree is to point out that their fees will be going up no matter what.  The way I see it, if the lower 20% of owners bail, that leaves 80% to split the maintenance costs.  That $400 maintenace fee just jumped to $500.  But it also means any future costs will be split among 80% too.  If the top 20% agrees to adjust their fees to $500, lowering the fees of the bottom 20% to $300, they still have that 20% to share in any future assessments.  

Also if the bottom 20% defaults, the fees of the MIDDLE 60% also increases to $500, with the potential for a snowball effect.  The low weeks weren't worth $400, so maybe the middle weeks are worth it at $400, but not $500.  If another 20% defaults, fees jump to $625 per week - for ALL weeks.

Yes, the resort could choose to shut down during certain seasons, if the HOA can buy back all those weeks - and perhaps they could negotiate a replacement week for those owners, either with a different week at the same resort, or the same week at another local resort.  It is not the responsibility of everybody else to bail those resorts out.


----------



## JLB (Aug 31, 2007)

I'm not familiar with the details of RCI Points. Can you buy extra Points if you don't have enough for an exhange? 

That's quite common in programs where _purchases_ require certain amounts of _credits_.

Points represent $$$ (Points purchased differently at different prices--thus creating a disparity), so in Points, an exchange that costs more Points than another exchange is, essentially, Points plus $$$.

In RCI Rewards credit card program, for instance, if you do not have enough credits for a purchase, you can add cash, so adding cash to credits in your account is not a new concept for RCI.

It's interesting that the evil doers are being blamed for evil doing before the evil they are planning on doing has been done.


----------



## JLB (Aug 31, 2007)

In this ongoing _RCI, Love Em or Leave Em _saga, we have the love ems, the leave ems, and us wafflers.   

Since I'm waffling, to this point in time, RCI and those with RCI who are there to help us if they can, have been of more help to us in getting the vacations we want and in solving problems that come up, than all of their detractors on all of the Internet forums have been of help to us.

Ya know what I mean?


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 31, 2007)

JLB said:


> I'm not familiar with the details of RCI Points. Can you buy extra Points if you don't have enough for an exhange?


Yes you can, but the official RCI-speak is that you can "rent" the points.  Within limits you can also borrow against future years.

"Renting" can be a reasonable option if you fall just a bit short.  If you need a lot of points, look elsewhere as to how to secure your lodging.


----------



## JLB (Aug 31, 2007)

Thanks Roger.

Looks to me, then, like Exchange Plus Cash in Weeks would be similar to _renting_ Points in Points.

An attempt to equalize disparities.

(Not denying that it would also be an effort to generate more revenue).

But, for years there have been cries to attempt to equalize exchanges in Weeks, to charge weaker weeks more for comparable exchanges.  What is wrong with that? (He asked, having been on both sides of the tracks.  )

As a perfectly hypothetical example (and I just hate it when I see  attempts to reduce these discussions to $$$ & Cents examples ), but let's say I own a week I bought for $350 and that has an annual fee of $235.  Let's say my resort has a rental program and it is common for weeks there to be rented to the public either through that program or directly by owners.

Let's say I would like to go to a resort where owners have paid $20000 for their weeks, have an annual fee of $800, and the week I want would rent in the open market for $2000.

If I was able to get that week as a trade, would it not be fair that I have to ante up some _extra_ cash to do so?

And does the disparity not make it obvious why fewer and fewer of those better resorts/weeks are not being deposited?


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 31, 2007)

JLB said:


> ...And does the disparity not make it obvious why fewer and fewer of those better resorts/weeks are not being deposited?


To be honest, I have not been following this thread at all; nor does this comment reply to what Jim specifically wrote in the last comment.

I suspect that RCI's long run strategy with regard to higher quality resorts is to encourage them to join the Points program.  Then the carrot for depositing is that you either get back something equivalent, or, failing that, you get back extra points to spend elsewhere.  You could rent, but what if what you want to rent costs as much as you get for your rental?  Save the effort and trade internally.

I have to agree, trading down within Weeks can be a losing proposition.  (When I first became a timesharer, before RCI Points ever existed, my wife observed that RCI has everything to gain by getting you to accept a lesser resort in an exchange.  They could them skim off the top and make money renting the upper tier resorts. Hmmmm.....) Renting is probably a better option.


----------

