# The case for resorts bulk banking



## dougp26364 (Jul 23, 2014)

It's been debated about resorts allowing owners to book and bank their own weeks for exchange vs the resorts cutting a deal with exchange companies and bulk banking weeks, giving them a variety of weeks and all owners wishing to exchange having equal trade power. Yesterday this came full circle for us. 

At exactly 09:00, when the reservations lines opened, we called to reserve a week at our home resort. We were caller 118 and I was on hold for 30 minutes, only to be told there was no availability. 

Today I looked online and guess what, I can easily trade back into my home resort. Owners were calling not to stay at their home resort, but to reserve the highest demand weeks, just for perceived exchange power. In fact I'm sitting in that very resort typing this as an exchanger, not an owner staying on their home week. 

With some of our other systems, we have points based reservations and the resorts control the inventory. They give the exchange companies a fixed amount of weeks of a certain value and the points have a fixed exchange value.  I have never had an issue reserving a week at those home resorts. 

Now we purchased at this resort to stay at this resort. Unfortunately, the way things are, if I'm not one of the very first callers when inventory is released, I'm out of luck. I believe I've come full circle and now understand and support bulk banking by resort management. Owners should have the best opportunity to use the highest demand weeks at their home resort, otherwise, why own there at all?


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 23, 2014)

dougp26364 said:


> It's been debated about resorts allowing owners to book and bank their own weeks for exchange vs the resorts cutting a deal with exchange companies and bulk banking weeks, giving them a variety of weeks and all owners wishing to exchange having equal trade power. Yesterday this came full circle for us.
> 
> At exactly 09:00, when the reservations lines opened, we called to reserve a week at our home resort. We were caller 118 and I was on hold for 30 minutes, only to be told there was no availability.
> 
> ...



I think this is why resorts go to points and/or take over the control of picking the weeks for deposit. They don't want to deal with the complaints from owners wanting to book to use who can't because all of the owners that book to deposit for perceived trade power.

The problem when the developer takes over control is that it swings almost 180 degrees in that they never deposit any high demand weeks and all that shows up in II is the low season weeks. Comparing Starwood and Marriott (before DC and even some now), you see very few if any high season Starwood units, but a fair number of Marriott's in high season. Though many still get snapped up by ongoing searches.

I suspect however that a lot of the people booking the ubber prime weeks won't ever need that trade power. I suspect that only about 5% of deposits are out of reach for all but the highest trade power deposits.


----------



## MuranoJo (Jul 24, 2014)

Of course, a drawback into getting back into your home resort via an exchange company is you have to pay the exchange fee.  

Not to mention there are some resorts who prohibit owners from exchanging back into the home resort via the exchange company.

Bulk deposit are beneficial to those owners who don't plan ahead and want to deposit late in the game.  (Or those who do plan ahead but intend to rent their week and don't get a rental, so try to deposit later.)  

On the positive side, typically, bulk deposits maintain their trade value as of the date the resort deposits, regardless of when the owner asks for a deposit from the bulk bank pool.


----------



## csxjohn (Jul 24, 2014)

Why should someone who wants to stay at the resort have any priority over what I want to do with my owned week?


As an owner I expect to reserve the week I choose, as long as I'm one of the first callers, and then use that week any way I legally see fit.


If I bought the TS to exchange then I want the best value for my exchange, not an averaged out value.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 24, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> Why should someone who wants to stay at the resort have any priority over what I want to do with my owned week?
> 
> 
> As an owner I expect to reserve the week I choose, as long as I'm one of the first callers, and then use that week any way I legally see fit.
> ...



Up until maybe a few years ago, I felt the same way. About the time we put our DRI units into a points based reservation system is when I started to turn. What happened was that the deeded weeks remained in a personal account and the points based system was in a corporate account. It allowed me to search using deposited high value weeks and search using points. 

My theory was the "high" value weeks would greatly outperform the average exchange power of the points. I was WRONG. Not just wrong but wrong in a big way. The "high" value weeks came back with the same availability as the average value points. There was literally NO difference. 

It's all about perception except in one aspect. Owners who own to stay often can't get into their own home resort during "high" season without either exchanging back in or putting the resort on speed dial and being on the phone 1 minute before the bell goes off.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 24, 2014)

muranojo said:


> Of course, a drawback into getting back into your home resort via an exchange company is you have to pay the exchange fee.
> 
> Not to mention there are some resorts who prohibit owners from exchanging back into the home resort via the exchange company.
> 
> ...



One other issue of trading back in would be unit location. Resorts often prioritize where to place guest based on how the week was obtained. Typically owners staying on their own time, renters who rented a specific view and exchangers. When you exchange back in, you may be lower on the totem pole as to preferred unit placement. We are experiencing that right now having exchanged back into our home resort.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jul 24, 2014)

> I suspect however that a lot of the people booking the ubber prime weeks won't ever need that trade power. I suspect that only about 5% of deposits are out of reach for all but the highest trade power deposits.



This is very true for II, but definitely not for RCI.  With RCI's TPU system a prime deposit vs. a shoulder deposit within the same floating season could literally be double the trading power and since you can use TPUs to book multiple transactions it makes a huge difference.  

All things considered, I can't imagine how anyone owning an RCI resort would ever be in favor of an exclusively bulk bank system.  In many cases, it makes the week unsellable in the resale market.

What I never quite understood is why these resorts with floating deeds don't institute a policy with a preferred reservation period for direct stays only.  Give owners within each season a 14 day period to reserve units for direct use only (and should a owner cancel later and ask to deposit, he/she would not have the ability to deposit the reserved prime week but would have to settle for a week selected by the management company - so no manipulating the system).  After the 14 days, owners could then call and reserve whichever week they want (based on remaining availability) for deposit.  Everyone would win that way.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 24, 2014)

It depends on your point of view.  Some people believe that owners who are going to use their timeshare have more "right" to it, than owners who are going to deposit it, or rent it.  

IMNSHO:  The early bird should get the worm.  YMMV


----------



## csxjohn (Jul 24, 2014)

bonk2boy said:


> ...What I never quite understood is why these resorts with floating deeds don't institute a policy with a preferred reservation period for direct stays only.  Give owners within each season a 14 day period to reserve units for direct use only (and should a owner cancel later and ask to deposit, he/she would not have the ability to deposit the reserved prime week but would have to settle for a week selected by the management company - so no manipulating the system).  After the 14 days, owners could then call and reserve whichever week they want (based on remaining availability) for deposit.  Everyone would win that way.



This goes back to my main point.

Why should the person who bought to stay have priority over one who bought to exchange?  The rules should be the same for both of us.  Just because you want to stay in the place shouldn't give you any priority over me who wants to exchange.

I own a 3 Br. lock off at Summer Bay Resort.  I paid to lock off the unit then reserved a 1br for Thanksgiving Week and a 2br for Christmas week.  I am depositing both of them and getting 2 exchanges for each.

If the weeks were bulk banked for me I could not get the 2 for 1 deal at this time.

Again, if I can get on the phone and reserve those weeks why should someone who wants to occupy the unit get a jump on me??

We all buy for different reasons and I don't think a safety net should be put up for those who don't understand how to use their ownership or are too lazy to do what they need to do.(Where's the soap box icon that I will now get off?)


----------



## PigsDad (Jul 24, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> (Where's the soap box icon that I will now get off?)


Here you go:





Kurt


----------



## csxjohn (Jul 24, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> Here you go:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I like it, we need it in our choices.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 24, 2014)

There's really no right or wrong way.

As to RCI and TPU's, on the surface I agree. The reality is I own with HGVC and they bulk bank and offer a level exchange rate, which works absolutely fine as far as I can tell. At least I'm not reading about a lot of unhappy HGVC owners or even DVC owners when it comes to RCI exchanges.

I'll still voice my opinion to the HOA and let them know what a disappointment it is for me to be a MF paying member yet have to literally exchange back into my home resort, the day after booking opens no less, just to stay in my season at my home resort.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 24, 2014)

bonk2boy said:


> What I never quite understood is why these resorts with floating deeds don't institute a policy with a preferred reservation period for direct stays only.  Give owners within each season a 14 day period to reserve units for direct use only (and should a owner cancel later and ask to deposit, he/she would not have the ability to deposit the reserved prime week but would have to settle for a week selected by the management company - so no manipulating the system).  After the 14 days, owners could then call and reserve whichever week they want (based on remaining availability) for deposit.  Everyone would win that way.



I think it would actually be better to allocate a certain percentage of reservations to owner stays and a certain percentage to exchanges. That way, everyone has a chance to use the week as desired. With a home priority period. it may be that only those reserving for home resort stays can make a reservation.


----------



## SmithOp (Jul 24, 2014)

dougp26364 said:


> There's really no right or wrong way.
> 
> 
> 
> At least I'm not reading about a lot of unhappy HGVC owners or even DVC owners when it comes to RCI exchanges.




I'm not happy at all about the HGVC bulk deposits, I have to get a separate RCI account if I want access, I'm blocked in the corp HGVC account by the 9 month club season block. I've diversified rather than adding more HGVC, I even gave one away in bargain deals.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 24, 2014)

SmithOp said:


> I'm not happy at all about the HGVC bulk deposits, I have to get a separate RCI account if I want access, I'm blocked in the corp HGVC account by the 9 month club season block. I've diversified rather than adding more HGVC, I even gave one away in bargain deals.



Maybe I'm confused? Are you talking about trading back into HGVC, a group of resorts you can book directly through HGVC?


----------



## Sandy VDH (Jul 24, 2014)

dougp26364 said:


> At exactly 09:00, when the reservations lines opened, we called to reserve a week at our home resort. We were caller 118 and I was on hold for 30 minutes, only to be told there was no availability.



If you called exactly at 9 then how can there already been 118 callers.  Since you are in Kansas is it possible that you called at 9 Central time instead of 9 Eastern of whatever timezone the call center is in.  

Which property was this for?  Is there an opportunity to go online and book it yourself. 


I am happy with my current portfolio. I have a variety of resorts HGVC, Wyndham, HIVC and well as a few straight up weeks, this allows me to overcome the HGVC restriction to 9 months out booking, and often can take advantage of booking back into HGVC for less points PLUS an exchange fee.  But for some high demand stays it is a much better deal.   I would jettison 1 or 2 straight up weeks and maybe my HIGV if it was worth it do so.  But for now it is working ok.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 24, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> I think it would actually be better to allocate a certain percentage of reservations to owner stays and a certain percentage to exchanges. That way, everyone has a chance to use the week as desired. With a home priority period. it may be that only those reserving for home resort stays can make a reservation.



I think that's pretty close to the principle I'm talking about. Resorts should know their owner occupancy rates for any given time, which would tell them which weeks to keep and which to allow for deposit. 

Not everyone can be on the phone at the specified date/time. Some people have to be at work. Some have family obligations. Why should I have an advantage because I work nights and can be on the phone, right when reservations open? 

Like I've said, there is no right or wrong way. There is no perfect way. However I do feel making all deposits equal gives owners who actual want to stay at their home resort during peak times the best opportunity to do so and, gives those that want to exchange a stress free process since they know all deposits are equal. They no longer have to play beat the clock to get good value, and in all likelihood have the exchange power necessary to get the exchange they want. 

Most of the problems I see don't come from the ultra prime weeks. Owners who've paid a premium for those weeks tend to use those weeks. The problem is the marginal season weeks where there's maybe three or four weeks in that season considered "high" value. Those weeks are often over valued by owners wanting to exchange. 

For example, how "powerful" are the July weeks that started this discussion if they have passed through all the filters and landed in the online inventory with I.I? Owners wanting to stay at their home resort can't do so without exchanging and the owners who reserved then deposited those weeks probably don't have the power they thought they had in the first place. 

I'm pretty sure it was John Chase that argued this with me years ago. I didn't necessarily agree at the time but, I've watched over the years and found he was correct.  Bulk banking Can be a difficult thing to wrap your mind around but it works best for the resort, owner wanting to use the resort they pay for and owners wanting good value for exchanges.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 24, 2014)

I do think trade value in II is often overrated. As you say, if these prime weeks got through all the requests and showed up online, they perhaps are not all that strong of a week.

I think another example of this is with my gold weeks in Orlando. I believe Saintsfan did an analysis and determined that May weeks, with a higher TDI, actually seemed to have less trade power than November weeks (especially November). It seems that a lot of people book the May weeks because they need to make a reservation to deposit so they can start a request. That leaves with fewer people concerned about the November weeks. So II perhaps gets fewer of those flooding II at 13/12 months.

This has made me change my strategy. I used to reserve May weeks, mainly because I needed to start a request or trade, but also for those higher TDIs. I am not adjusting it and only reserving two weeks in May and then reserving the next two in November. I may wait it out next year and reserve all four weeks in November. Though it seems that I am still trying to play the high trade power game, but they don't seem to be as highly demanded as the May weeks for reservations.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jul 24, 2014)

> I do think trade value in II is often overrated. As you say, if these prime weeks got through all the requests and showed up online, they perhaps are not all that strong of a week.



Agreed with regard to II, but I think some people see RCI's transparency and figure II must be similar to that behind the scenes.  In RCI there is a massive difference in trading value of a week 27 and a week 35 at an east coast beach location (for example).


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jul 25, 2014)

> Why should the person who bought to stay have priority over one who bought to exchange? The rules should be the same for both of us. Just because you want to stay in the place shouldn't give you any priority over me who wants to exchange.
> 
> I own a 3 Br. lock off at Summer Bay Resort. I paid to lock off the unit then reserved a 1br for Thanksgiving Week and a 2br for Christmas week. I am depositing both of them and getting 2 exchanges for each.
> 
> ...



Bulk banking makes no sense for anyone other than the management company.  It damages the resale value of the ownership pretty heavily and often guarantees that on average anyone who deposits will get less trading power than they would have without a bulk banking system allowing the management company to hold onto more valuable weeks for rentals. 

All things considered though, a management company's goal (in my opinion) should be to do their best to deliver what was advertised to owners who bought from them.  With a floating week, the proposed purpose was to offer an owner flexibility on the varying timing of their vacations from year to year.  Owners were also promised they would have an opportunity to trade through II or RCI in years where they want to travel to a different location to try something different but owners get that option exactly as described regardless of which week is deposited.  (Remember - the ruthless sales people who are selling the floating weeks are promoting flexibility for all owners.  Even they don't spin the sale such that "everyone can just reserve a high demand week like July 4th or Christmas week for deposit".  They know that doing this would magnify the potential future supply problem to the buyer so this is one promise that those ruthless liars actually do not usually make.  They usually sell owners on how great the trading power is regardless of which week gets deposited).  In the long run, I also believe that a higher percentage of direct owner use at a timeshare creates value for all owners of the property (as compared to a higher percentage of owners choosing to deposit).   

There's no easy solution particularly in locations like Orlando where Christmas is in so much more demand than the rest of the year or those crazy Williamsburg and Branson Marriott deeds that float platinum from week 9 through the middle of October (seriously how did they really anticipate March being high demand weeks at those places?)


----------



## SmithOp (Jul 25, 2014)

dougp26364 said:


> Maybe I'm confused? Are you talking about trading back into HGVC, a group of resorts you can book directly through HGVC?




HGVC bulk banks more than a year in advance, so by the time 9 months rolls around everything is gone.  Yes I can book direct with HGVC points, but the point cost is much less for the same unit from the RCI bulk bank (7,000 vs 4800)


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 25, 2014)

bonk2boy said:


> Bulk banking makes no sense for anyone other than the management company.  It damages the resale value of the ownership pretty heavily and often guarantees that on average anyone who deposits will get less trading power than they would have without a bulk banking system allowing the management company to hold onto more valuable weeks for rentals.
> 
> All things considered though, a management company's goal (in my opinion) should be to do their best to deliver what was advertised to owners who bought from them.  With a floating week, the proposed purpose was to offer an owner flexibility on the varying timing of their vacations from year to year.  Owners were also promised they would have an opportunity to trade through II or RCI in years where they want to travel to a different location to try something different but owners get that option exactly as described regardless of which week is deposited.  (Remember - the ruthless sales people who are selling the floating weeks are promoting flexibility for all owners.  Even they don't spin the sale such that "everyone can just reserve a high demand week like July 4th or Christmas week for deposit".  They know that doing this would magnify the potential future supply problem to the buyer so this is one promise that those ruthless liars actually do not usually make.  They usually sell owners on how great the trading power is regardless of which week gets deposited).  In the long run, I also believe that a higher percentage of direct owner use at a timeshare creates value for all owners of the property (as compared to a higher percentage of owners choosing to deposit).
> 
> There's no easy solution particularly in locations like Orlando where Christmas is in so much more demand than the rest of the year or those crazy Williamsburg and Branson Marriott deeds that float platinum from week 9 through the middle of October (seriously how did they really anticipate March being high demand weeks at those places?)



As to trade power: I use to feel this way as well and defended my position against John Chase, who was on an HOA board with similar but flawed logic.

It wasn't until I could directly compare results from a selected "high" value week and using points, which is an averaged value week, that I began to change my mind. With I.I. there was literally no difference in trade power.

Now RCI appears to be a different animal. RCI has a different exchange model using TPU's and it can be very clear that there are differences from one week to another. I dropped out of our personal account with RCI because I was seeing a greed factor large enough I couldn't take it anymore. They designed a complex program in which they set and change the rules to fit RCI's needs/desires. I didn't like that. Granted I.I. probably does similar things but, I haven't seen it and from personal experience haven't felt it in my exchange habits.

Resort groups such as HGVC and DVC have points that appear to have a set value in RCI and both, to my knowledge, utilize bulk banking with RCI. To be honest I hate RCI enough that I always use my HGVC points to stay within their system but, the feeling I get is that RCI sets an averaged TPU for all HGVC owners that appears to be an acceptable value. At least I'm not seeing a tremendous amount of posts about RCI ripping of HGVC owners in the exchange value department. As a HGVC owner I can say that we typically can get what we want when we want it with the exception of Oahu. There is so much demand on Oahu that you need to book at the first opportunity to have a shot at any inventory but again, I've never felt the need to be on the phone or computer at exactly the moment inventory is released.

Now I'm going to toss you a bone. Interval has apparently started their own RCI like points based reservations system. They're talking with owners about it at Grand Lodge on Peak 7 were we're staying at the moment. Because we have our dogs with us and because we purchased at this resort strictly to use (because as owners we can bring our dogs), we had no desire to attend a presentation. If I.I. goes to a RCI style system then there's likely to be a major shift in how we view weeks exchanges within the I.I. system. One thing is certain, nothing stays the same for very long in timeshare land.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 25, 2014)

SmithOp said:


> HGVC bulk banks more than a year in advance, so by the time 9 months rolls around everything is gone.  Yes I can book direct with HGVC points, but the point cost is much less for the same unit from the RCI bulk bank (7,000 vs 4800)



So yours is gamesmanship trying to get something for less, but thwarted by the timing of HGVC's bulk banking. Not a bad idea and exactly why TUG is a good thing. It appears HGVC recognized that loop hole and took measures to keep owners for going through it in this particular case, so there's a risk in using that strategy.

My point has been that systems such as HGVC control their inventory in such a manner that maximizes outside trade opportunities for it's owners while keeping adequate inventory for home resort usage by owners wishing to stay in their home resort during their home resort season. By knowing what to keep they keep owners wanting to stay at their home resort happy while depositing far enough in advance and enough quality weeks to get maximum value for those wishing to exchange outside the system, not exchanging back into the system.

I'll make one other observation from my own experience. We own a MVCI resort, Ocean Pointe in Palm Beach Shores, FL. It's a 3 bedroom unit but the wife and I typically don't need all 3 rooms, so we lock off that 3rd bedroom. One thing I've seen over the years in doing online searches was that I could trade back into my home resort using the studio and get a larger unit. Once I even found a 3 bedroom unit (hurricane season) with an online search. With MVCI moving into a trust based ownership and a points based reservation system, I suspect those days will eventually come to an end.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 25, 2014)

Sandy VDH said:


> If you called exactly at 9 then how can there already been 118 callers.  Since you are in Kansas is it possible that you called at 9 Central time instead of 9 Eastern of whatever timezone the call center is in.
> 
> Which property was this for?  Is there an opportunity to go online and book it yourself.
> 
> ...



Good question. First, we weren't in KS when I made the call. We were sitting in Breckenridge where the resort is located when we were trying to make the reservation. I was actually sitting at the Starbucks a few blocks away.

When I asked the same question I was told that you have to plug the number in at 08:59 and hit send just as the numbers show 09:00. IOW, you better be lined up with their clock. My clock showed 09:00 when I dialed the number, unfortunately 118 other owners dialed in a split second faster than I had. I set myself up ahead of 09:00 by setting my alarm for 08:55, giving me time to dial in the number and wait. It didn't work. I did this because I missed the opportunity to book the week before, which was the week we really wanted. That's when I learned how popular my home resort was for the month of July.

After discussing things with my wife we decided we really didn't want to travel to our home resort in July as it's just to busy with families. Unfortunately I had our vacation weeks planned out and July spaced things out better. Instead we'll come up here in June, which is a short 4 weeks after our prior vacation ( I like to spread vacations out 6 to 8 weeks apart), then we'll go into September before our next vacation. It's screws up my timing some but we can live with it.


----------



## csxjohn (Jul 25, 2014)

dougp26364 said:


> ...When I asked the same question I was told that you have to plug the number in at 08:59 and hit send just as the numbers show 09:00. IOW, you better be lined up with their clock. My clock showed 09:00 when I dialed the number, unfortunately 118 other owners dialed in a split second faster than I had. I set myself up ahead of 09:00 by setting my alarm for 08:55, giving me time to dial in the number and wait. It didn't work. I did this because I missed the opportunity to book the week before, which was the week we really wanted. That's when I learned how popular my home resort was for the month of July.
> 
> ....



Before Ron Parise turned me on to esnipe I used to snipe bids myself.  Exact time was important.  I discovered that eBay time and my cell phone time were exactly lined up so I used a clock with a second hand on it to know exactly when the minute would change on the eBay clock.

The time that showed on the auction was sometimes delayed so it was not reliable, my method was.

Of course if the resort time is not the same as cell phone time this exercise is useless.


----------



## VegasBella (Jul 25, 2014)

I'm not sure what the best solution is but I do think owners deserve priority to book weeks they'll use over owners booking to exchange. 

Exchanging with 3rd party systems like RCI and II is legal and allowed but that's not the primary use of timeshare ownership. It's a secondary market developed around the primary market. 

Personally, I've experienced frustration when trying to book our 1 week to use at a resort some others own to exchange. We used to have to book IN PERSON to get the high demand weeks. After camping out since 4am one year my husband was 2nd in line. The person in front of him booked ALL the units our size for that week! I have to assume they were exchangers. Since we live a ways away we couldn't drive out every week to book in person all Summer so we had to book an off season week! 

Luckily the resort (San Clemente Inn) now offers online booking (the fax and phone methods simply don't work for prime weeks - the rules favored in person booking and they seem to misplace faxes) and they eliminated in person booking so we got a Summer week for next year. We'll see what the future holds but if we have trouble booking Summer weeks or their weird policies annoy us then we're going to sell.

Anyway, I think the primary use deserves some level of priority. If you're booking to exchange you should not be able to kick out owners booking to use. I bet owners who use are more gentle on their rooms and have a stronger interest in maintaining or improving the resort therefore it's likely  in the best interests of the Hoa to give preference to owners who book to use.


----------



## csxjohn (Jul 25, 2014)

VegasBella said:


> I'm not sure what the best solution is but I do think owners deserve priority to book weeks they'll use over owners booking to exchange.



I'm curious why you and others think that one type of use should have priority over another.   



> Exchanging with 3rd party systems like RCI and II is legal and allowed but that's not the primary use of timeshare ownership. It's a secondary market developed around the primary market.



Really?  Not only is exchanging legal and allowed it is the primary reason many people buy timeshares and is touted by the retail sales people.



> Personally, I've experienced frustration when trying to book our 1 week to use at a resort some others own to exchange. We used to have to book IN PERSON to get the high demand weeks. After camping out since 4am one year my husband was 2nd in line. The person in front of him book ALL the units our size for that week! I have to assume they were exchangers. Since we live a ways away we couldn't drive out every week to book in person all Summer so we had to book an off season week!



I think this was a case of a poor program by the resort.  A fairer way would be to permit the first person in line one reservation then to the back of the line.  It's also a case of not understanding what you bought and how it works.  Just because you can't deal with the way the system is set up doesn't mean you should be given  any sort of proirity for the type of use you want.  Where's the equality in that?



> Luckily the resort (San Clemente Inn) now offers online booking (the fax and phone methods simply don't work for prime weeks - the rules favored in person booking and they seem to misplace faxes) and they eliminated in person booking so we got a Summer week for next year. We'll see what the future holds but if we have trouble booking Summer weeks or their weird policies annoy us then we're going to sell.



Selling is what you should do if you don't like the system they use.



> Anyway, I think the primary use deserves some level of priority. If you're booking to exchange you should not be able to kick out owners booking to use. I bet owners who use are more gentle on their rooms and have a stronger interest in maintaining or improving the resort therefore it's likely  in the best interests of the Hoa to give preference to owners who book to use.



Where is it written that owing to use is the primary use??  You are making that up.

And I'll bet the other way.  I treat everywhere I stay the same as if I were staying at home.  I understand that others aren't that way but I'm willing to bet that those that are hard on their exchange properties are just as hard on the properties they "own."


----------



## presley (Jul 25, 2014)

I think the day resorts give booking priority to people using their week for their own stay is the day that everyone books the best week for there own stay.  Later, something will come up and they will have to exchange it after all.  People who game systems will continue to game systems.


----------



## VegasBella (Jul 25, 2014)

I'm not "making it up" - Exchange companies came into existence as a secondary market to weeks ownerships. It's the history of Timesharing.


----------



## csxjohn (Jul 25, 2014)

VegasBella said:


> I'm not "making it up" - Exchange companies came into existence as a secondary market to weeks ownerships. It's the history of Timesharing.



So when the salesman tells me that if you don't want to stay at your resort you can rent it or exchange it is just another one of their lies?

I think this is one of the few true things they utter.  

TimeshareWorld is in a constant state of flux and the only thing that stays the same is constant change.

Forget about how it was in 1974 and get into the 21st century.  Owning to rent, owning to exchange, and owning to occupy is todays reality.


----------



## PigsDad (Jul 25, 2014)

VegasBella said:


> I'm not "making it up" - Exchange companies came into existence as a secondary market to weeks ownerships. It's the history of Timesharing.


Exchange companies have been around since before most timeshares were built, so your statement holds no water whatsoever.  

If someone bought a week with the intention of trading it all the time, why should that owner be treated as a lower-class citizen compared to an owner who buys to use?  Do you honestly think there should be different "classes" of owners, depending on how they use their ownership?

Kurt


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 25, 2014)

It seems what is being debated here is just the timeshare twist on the old issue of when one person's right to enjoy or use their property in a certain way begins to negatively impact the ability of someone else to use their property the way they want to. Typically the only way to resolve those issues is to formulate solutions that balance the needs/wants of both parties.

That's why some neighborhoods have architectural standards homeowners have to comply with and why most communities have noise ordinances, etc. To protect and balance the interests of all those who live there. There's nothing wrong with painting your mailbox, you just can't paint it pink.

To me, ownership of a particular resort should mean something. If I am an "owner" I should have a greater right to use that property's prime weeks than an exchanger coming in. But I think that an "owner" should also have an equally correct right to book the best week he or she can for max power for exchanging purposes. Those needs conflict only because some weeks would generate a higher trading power for that owner who wants to trade, otherwise the trading owner would be content with any week since all he wants to do is trade. That situation thus creates a natural conflict between the using owner and the trading owner.

I think a bulk-banking or other resort-managed solution that helps balance or equalize the trading power of all weeks is the fairest way to balance the conflicting goals of the resort owner who uses their week vs. the resort owner who wants to trade. The trader can still get a week he or she needs to deposit with the trading company, but if there is less trading advantage given to booking a prime week, the competition with owners wanting to use that week is reduced.

The owner who absolutely wants to book July 4 or Easter week for max trade power would just need to look to own at resorts that don't try to balance those competing interests.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 25, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> Before Ron Parise turned me on to esnipe I used to snipe bids myself.  Exact time was important.  I discovered that eBay time and my cell phone time were exactly lined up so I used a clock with a second hand on it to know exactly when the minute would change on the eBay clock.
> 
> The time that showed on the auction was sometimes delayed so it was not reliable, my method was.
> 
> Of course if the resort time is not the same as cell phone time this exercise is useless.



If it were owners wanting to stay at their own resort and it was an extremely popular week, such as Presidents week for ski season, I could see maybe needing to do this, but resorts typically sell those types of weeks as event weeks at a premium. This shouldn't be necessary when desiring to simply use your home resort week during a popular summer month. Especially when those weeks are being reserved strictly to exchange. Why by a resort you have to exchange back into? It makes no sense for the developer or owners.

This is EXACTLY why I believe in bulk banking and averaged trade value. Owners should be able to book their home resort week to use during the most popular times without needing a special clock timed to the resorts clock and call within seconds of striking the hour.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 25, 2014)

presley said:


> I think the day resorts give booking priority to people using their week for their own stay is the day that everyone books the best week for there own stay.  Later, something will come up and they will have to exchange it after all.  People who game systems will continue to game systems.



This is easy enough to overcome and, most resorts I've seen that bulk bank do. You reserve a prime week, sit on it for a month or two, then request to deposit for exchange. The prime week is replaced with one of the bulk banked weeks already deposited by the resort. The prime week goes back into the pool for owners to reserve.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 25, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> So when the salesman tells me that if you don't want to stay at your resort you can rent it or exchange it is just another one of their lies?
> 
> I think this is one of the few true things they utter.
> 
> ...



You know as well as others salesmen exaggerate their stories. The most common one I use to hear was "buy here and exchange into Presidents week at ski resorts." I once had a salesman show me what he said was the most EXPENSIVE timeshare in the book and told me what their MF's were. His tactic was to tell me to buy his "cheap week and exchange into that "expensive" resort. 

Yes they lie about exchanging.

Bulk banking doesn't take away any owners right to exchange. It simply preserves the resort weeks that owners of that resort want to use the most. If you want to get into fairness, why should any owner who paid to own at that resort and pays MF's at that resort also be required to join an exchange company, pay the exchange companies membership fee's AND pay an exchange fee just to stay at their own resort. Either way you can argue fairness.

You're correct in that timeshare stays in a state of flux. That's why we're seeing a lot of systems go into closed systems that allow for home resort advantage, club reservations and BULK banking for those who want to go outside the systems. Developers and management companies seem to realize most owners own to use, not exchange. They try to keep the prime weeks for those who want to use, not for those wanting to exchange for rent. 

There has been a cottage industry of timeshare rentals, both exchanges being rented and owners renting the most popular weeks. Sunterra was rife with this when DRI bought them out despite rules to the contrary. I recall reading from a few unhappy owners who had purchased tons of cheap resale points who reserved the best weeks at the best resorts, then renting them as a cottage industry. DRI put a stop to that, using the rules to disallow the practice. They argued the salesmen turned them on to the potential, even though the rules prohibited it.

The worm is turning yet again. Owners are starting to be given first choice when they want to stay at their home resort and I believe that's the way it should be. Otherwise, why bother to own at that resort? Just exchange in all the time.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 25, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> Exchange companies have been around since before most timeshares were built, so your statement holds no water whatsoever.
> 
> If someone bought a week with the intention of trading it all the time, why should that owner be treated as a lower-class citizen compared to an owner who buys to use?  Do you honestly think there should be different "classes" of owners, depending on how they use their ownership?
> 
> Kurt



Why is this looked on as classes? Those that want to exchange can still exchange. 

Why should anyone who owns at a resort need to exchange back into that resort or rent at that resort to get a prime week? 

As to which is primary, today it probably doesn't matter. However, exchange companies couldn't have existed prior to timeshares being built. Why would they exist when there wouldn't have been a market. 

It's really a moot point whether the chicken or the egg came first. They both exist now.


----------



## PassionForTravel (Jul 25, 2014)

I'm surprised that anyone is arguing the other side. Using the bulk bank is the trend it’s accepted at HGVC, Starwood, Wyndham, Worldmark, DRI all do it. I don’t see a whole lot of people in those chains complaining that they are not able to exchange outside their chain, quite the opposite. I don’t hear many people complaining about exchanging in either.  As an example with my Worldmark (they bulk bank) I’ve gotten an exchange for spring break and thanksgiving week in Hawaii, every year for the past three years and could get Christmas and New Years if I wanted to pay the airfare. I think the key with the bulk banking and the reason it works so well for the people exchanging out is that it’s not only a blending of a given resort, but it’s a blending of the whole system. So the exchange companies in their contracts negotiate some good weeks that they are guaranteed to get, and therefore give the traders good trading power. The only complaints I hear are from Marriott owners and most of that is because they have created two classes of owners, those in the DC and those not. The ones who are not are concerned about trading in the future.

Most of the major chains in their mini-systems have recognized giving owners who want to use preference and do something similar. Whether Wyndham, Starwood, HGVC, etc. they all give the owner the right to book their home week before those weeks are opened up to the rest of the owners in the mini-system, why would external exchanging be any different. I’ve also never heard anyone argue that the mini-systems should do anything different.

I have two traders, one who does bulk banking and one who doesn’t, the one who does, sure makes my life easier. 

Ian


----------



## VegasBella (Jul 25, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> So when the salesman tells me that if you don't want to stay at your resort you can rent it or exchange it is just another one of their lies?



Yeah basically.
Your deed probably doesn't say anything about right to exchange. You only have that benefit if and when it suits the HOA. Exchanging with third party companies is NOT a right of ownership and should not be treated as though it is.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 25, 2014)

> Using the bulk bank is the trend it’s accepted at HGVC, *Starwood*, Wyndham, Worldmark, DRI all do it. I don’t see a whole lot of people in those chains complaining that they are not able to exchange outside their chain, quite the opposite. I don’t hear many people complaining about exchanging in either.



Au contraire mon frere (I always wanted to say that) Starwood owners had a major melt-down when Starwood went to exclusive bulk space banking, and exchanging has steadily gone down hill since then.


----------



## PassionForTravel (Jul 26, 2014)

Wasn't around in 2009 so I can't speak to that. In the last 1 1/2 that I've been reading the Starwood forum the only discussion that I have seen has to do with how little Starwood is depositing in II (usually how much maui) in their bulk banks compared to previous years. Lots of possible reasons for that I.e. less people depositing. I've not seen anyone complain about the trade power of their weeks, which is Doug's point. My split SDO sees everything that my other properties see, in addition to everything that is under Starwood preference including larger units.

Ian


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 26, 2014)

PassionForTravel said:


> Wasn't around in 2009 so I can't speak to that. In the last 1 1/2 that I've been reading the Starwood forum the only discussion that I have seen has to do with how little Starwood is depositing in II (usually how much maui) in their bulk banks compared to previous years. Lots of possible reasons for that I.e. less people depositing. I've not seen anyone complain about the trade power of their weeks, which is Doug's point. My split SDO sees everything that my other properties see, in addition to everything that is under Starwood preference including larger units.
> 
> Ian



I would agree. People aren't getting less Starwood trades because their trade power has gone down since Starwood and II are now doing a blended seasonal trade power on deposits. It seems that it is because of other factors and one reason we have decided not to buy a Starwood week of any kind, though we were looking around this time last year.

Trade power is the question. I think that trade power is over rated in II. The difference between II and RCI is that in RCI I can get as many weeks as my TPUs will allow. That is great if I travel in the off season or on super short notice. With II, you get one for one. Though there are other programs to allow you to get two or more and even more with lock offs).

II hides their trade power metrics. But it seems that what you get for deposit is more than is required to book the same week back in to your home resort. At least in low/shoulder season. That is why one can often trade a studio or 1BR unit in to a 2BR unit in the same or higher season.


----------



## pacodemountainside (Jul 26, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> Exchange companies have been around since before most timeshares were built, so your statement holds no water whatsoever.
> 
> 
> Kurt



Not  so sure about that!

Time sharing   originated in   Europe  circa  sixties.

It hit USA  late sixties  as 20 Year RTU with everything fixed.

It soon became apparent this  was a bummer although Disney  still  does as well as Mexico 25  year   RTUs with renewal options.

So, in 1974 Jon and  Christel  DeHaan formed  RCI to  provide flexibility.

They split   and one kept RCI  and other formed II. 

In 1991 Wyndham   developed points  program  and along with Developers  discovering they could take a  Deluxe   2 BR condo that might sell for $150K-$200K they could divide  into 52 Intervals  and sell for  around a million or so  with lying sales weasels. As a nice bonus when Developer  was HOA   signed life time contract for   say  operating  costs plus  10% life time management fee.


----------



## gnorth16 (Jul 26, 2014)

That's why I like my fixed week for trading.  No dealing with calls or waiting.  I send off an email and it's in RCI the next day.  The other that floats, it's two years out (MF's prepay) and book over the phone, but it's hasn't been an issue so far, probably since owners aren't thinking two years out for their vacations.

As for using vs. exchanging vs. renting... One shouldn't be classed as higher  than the other.  If it wasn't for the high trading power of some resorts, they would have more weeks owned by the HOA and MF's in default.  Trading is part of the* timeshare game* and it's not going to change.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jul 26, 2014)

> That's why I like my fixed week for trading. No dealing with calls or waiting. I send off an email and it's in RCI the next day. The other that floats, it's two years out (MF's prepay) and book over the phone, but it's hasn't been an issue so far, probably since owners aren't thinking two years out for their vacations.
> 
> As for using vs. exchanging vs. renting... One shouldn't be classed as higher than the other. If it wasn't for the high trading power of some resorts, they would have more weeks owned by the HOA and MF's in default. Trading is part of the timeshare game and it's not going to change.



I'm not a fan of bulk banking at all, but what has always seemed unfair to me about the "first come first serve" approach is that the owner who uses their unit for direct use is placed at a much greater planning hardship than the owners who intend to exchange.  Everyone has to pay early to reserve early, but the exchanger isn't making a commitment to travel at the time he/she reserves.  The exchanger simply lays out a maintenance fee two years in advance and in turn deposits a week with RCI / II - they can use their exchange whenever they want.  The owner who desires to actually use the "week they bought" would in some cases have to commit two years in advance to a specific week for vacation.  My feeling is that many people who bought a floating week from a developer probably did so for perceived flexibility to pick the week they want to go.

I think the fairest floating systems are the ones that give owners their choice of week on a rotating basis in tiers (I think Snowbird in Utah does this).


----------



## PigsDad (Jul 27, 2014)

I said:


> Exchange companies have been around since before *most *timeshares were built, so your statement holds no water whatsoever.



Then you said:



pacodemountainside said:


> Not  so sure about that!
> 
> Time sharing   originated in   Europe  circa  sixties.
> 
> ...



So you are saying that *most *timeshares were built *before *1974???

I don't think so.

Kurt


----------



## csxjohn (Jul 27, 2014)

So far no one has told me why they think one use type should have priority over another.

It seem those who own to use think their use should come first in the pecking order.

Just because I bought a unit to pick weeks and trade doesn't give me a feeling of entitlement where I would want some sort or priority, why do those who bought to occupy feel this right of entitlement?  

The bottom line is if you don't like the way a resort handles ressies or banking you should not buy there.  Do what I did and buy where you like the way things are handled.


----------



## johnrsrq (Jul 27, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> So far no one has told me why they think one use type should have priority over another.
> 
> It seem those who own to use think their use should come first in the pecking order.
> 
> ...



Devil's advocate CSXjohn (worked for? CSX- great co, along with nsc) , if I bought a deeded week in Prime or Platinum period for the extra price, then I would expect and to be given what I bargained for. Among those weeks in that Platinum period, the management company began a process of collecting forfeited weeks and giving them to sister companies. That process evolved after I bought and of course, not the current period. So, not a consideration of a purchase- that's a diversion of the argument.
So, the management of inventory I place, the Platinum week owner becomes inferior to the larger sister Platinum stakeholder and never gets the desired interval during the Platinum period. It seems abusive and falls short of service excellence in hospitality.

I would imagine persistence pays the owner when they hound management for some priority but who wants to hound?


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 27, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> So far no one has told me why they think one use type should have priority over another.
> 
> It seem those who own to use think their use should come first in the pecking order.
> 
> ...



No one should have priority over the other BUT, I think ALL owners should be accommodated. Those who want to exchange should be allowed to exchange. Those who want to stay at the resort they bought and paid for should be allowed to stay at that resort. I just don't believe the highest demand weeks should all be given to I.I. and that owners should have to fight it out at 0 dark thirty to get those weeks. It's frustrating to all involved. 

All of my resorts, except this one, bulk bank now. Prior to bulk banking I reserved the strongest demand week and got the exchanges I wanted BUT, owners at the resort didn't always get to use the week they wanted. Post bulk banking I still get the exchanges I want BUT, owners at the resort now have better availability and most get the chance to stay at their home resort on the week they want. In fact, since bulk banking began the ONLY resort I haven't been able to reserve the week I requested was the resort that does not bulk bank.

You're stance is on PRECEIVED value with I.I. With RCI, it's a different story when you're looking at TPU's. But, if any week at a resort was given equal TPU's with RCI regardless of the week assigned for deposit, it would be a moot point in discussing exchanges through RCI.

I guess maybe I should have labeled this as "The case for bulk banking with I.I."

For the most part I believe we'll have to agree to disagree. It's still good to air the differences on TUG and keep everyone thinking.


----------



## ronparise (Jul 27, 2014)

Just read through this thread....I usually skip the exchange stuff as un interesting to me...I dont  do much in the way of exchanging

What I come to is the old advice to buy where you intend to travel is still the best advice. And if you want a guarantee, with no flexibility, buy an old style fixed week. If you want some flexibility with little guarantee buy a floating week, and if you want the the ultimate in flexibility with absolutely no guarantees, buy into a points system

If you own a high demand week at a high demand location you will be guaranteed your week (and room and view) every year, and if you want to exchange, it ought to have good trading power.


----------



## pacodemountainside (Jul 27, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> I said:
> 
> 
> Then you said:
> ...





I'm not "making it up" - Exchange companies came into existence as a secondary market to weeks ownerships. It's the history of Timesharing. 


Exchange companies have been around since before most timeshares were built, so your statement holds no water whatsoever. 

So you are saying that most timeshares were built before 1974???
I don't think so.



No, I was responding  based on original post  which  does hold some water. Without  exchange  companies coming in existence to serve  a need I doubt TS  would be  anywhere as near as large  and popular  as it is today. I  would  say there were quite few in existence before most  exchange companies. However, it is clear the nineties  until 2008 were the heyday. Seagull almost going bankrupt  and losing PH  and Wyndham  mothballing Desert Blue  and going to WAAM are  a couple examples of overbuilding.

The growth of TS  has    resulted in  probably around  a dozen exchange companies  today: DAE, Red Week. SFX, OBX, TPI, Platinum Interchange,  Hawaii TS Exchange , Crown Exchange  and of course TUG  Forum come to mind.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jul 27, 2014)

> It seem those who own to use think their use should come first in the pecking order.
> 
> Just because I bought a unit to pick weeks and trade doesn't give me a feeling of entitlement where I would want some sort or priority, why do those who bought to occupy feel this right of entitlement?



There are a couple ways of looking at this.  For starters, if all owners end up depositing their weeks with the TS company it's a lose / lose for everyone who owns at that particular resort.  A surplus of supply will trigger a decline in overall trading power, for one thing, and more importantly, owners at a particular resort tend to take better care of the resort and its amenities when they stay there than exchangers (since they own there).  From the management company's perspective, statistically they are also more likely to convince existing owners to buy more so they prefer for actual owners to stay at the property.  All in all, nobody really wins if everyone dumps their week into the exchange bank.  

Having said this, most of the time a bulk bank policy really isn't necessary to accommodate all owners.  For example, I recently bought a floating prime week at Presidential Villas in Surfside that came with free 2013 usage.  The transaction didn't clear until May 2013 and when I went to call to make my reservation there were only a few early July weeks that were booked up.  I could have had any week in August or late July that I wanted for use or deposit at around 90 days or less from check in.  I chose not to deposit because of the RCI penalty, but it wasn't like there was that much of a difference in trading power between week 27 and week 29 (a few TPUs for July 4th but that's it).  And from the perspective of someone looking to stay at the resort, there were plenty of true summer weeks to chose from to accommodate a schedule.  So no issues with first come first serve policy here.

The need for bulk banking comes into play when a resort badly misjudges the window that they designate as prime floating.  A lot of Williamsburg and Branson weeks are like this (I've seen float ranges from week 9-43) and also some in the Carolinas float almost all year as prime.  IMO these properties badly misjudged the golf desirability factor.  Weeks 9-16 and  37ish-43 just aren't very desirable in these areas.  I do see a problem with someone buying a prime summer floater for use and not being able to get ANY summer week and then ultimately having to deposit their week because their kids are in school and they can't use the weeks available.  To me, this is very different from someone not calling in time to get July 4th week and having to settle for a later week in July.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 27, 2014)

It's not that developers misjudged so much as they stretched the season. They do this to sell more weeks at a higher average price. They do not care that there are essentially 4 really high demand weeks when they sell 13 weeks in that season. Developers are in business to make money and they make more money by stretching the season.

In our portfolio of timeshare, Marriott is the most obvious about this. At Ocean Pointe there is really maybe 6 prime weeks, yet they sold platinum season as the last 2 weeks of December through April. High season probably runs from February through the first or second week of March. 

Vegas is 100% platinum. Really? Summer in Vegas is platinum? How about Jan and Feb? The don't misjudge. They sell as many weeks as high value as they can, flooding the market. 

You're likely correct in that this creates the situation in which bulk banking becomes necessary but, as CSXJohn points out how fair is this to those who want to exchange?


----------



## gnorth16 (Jul 27, 2014)

bonk2boy said:


> I'm not a fan of bulk banking at all, but what has always seemed unfair to me about the "first come first serve" approach is that the owner who uses their unit for direct use is placed at a much greater planning hardship than the owners who intend to exchange.  Everyone has to pay early to reserve early, but the exchanger isn't making a commitment to travel at the time he/she reserves.  The exchanger simply lays out a maintenance fee two years in advance and in turn deposits a week with RCI / II - they can use their exchange whenever they want.  The owner who desires to actually use the "week they bought" would in some cases have to commit two years in advance to a specific week for vacation.  My feeling is that many people who bought a floating week from a developer probably did so for perceived flexibility to pick the week they want to go.
> 
> I think the fairest floating systems are the ones that give owners their choice of week on a rotating basis in tiers (I think Snowbird in Utah does this).



Fair point, however I would use the word inconvenience as opposed to hardship when planning a vacation two years out.  I know what the school breaks are 4 years away and if I wanted to, I could figure out what my days on/off would be two years out (I work rotational shift work based on a 56 day cycle).  As long as people know the rules, then it's fair game.  I' not trying to change the rules, just tell me what they are and I will try and take advantage of them the best I can.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 27, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> So far no one has told me why they think one use type should have priority over another.



I thought that a few folks did that in this thread. I am a serial exchanger who will never use my home resort and like the idea of reserving prime weeks and depositing or renting. That being said, I absolutely believe that those seeking to occupy should have priority over those seeking to exchange or profit.

An HOA should ensure first and foremost that those seeking to occupy have reasonable ability to do so. And I do not consider dialing in at 8:59 and 57 seconds reasonable. I would prefer it that there be a waiting list for owners if they are unable to get a reservation, that exchange company deposits be restricted to, say, the 10 month mark, and even then any deposit inside of 10 months must have been made on or after that point. Anyone who has scored a prime week outside of 10 months and subsequently seeks to deposit, would have to first cancel the reservation and rebook, say 48 hours later, during which time wait list reservations could be filled. Wait list requests placed outside of 10 months that are filled through this process and are subsequently attempted to deposit would also be subject to this restriction. Any requests inside of 10 months would be fair game.

I know this does not address profit motive, although an HOA could attempt to police the rental sites for any attempt to profit from a reservation made or wait list-requested outside of 10 months. There are a few loopholes and administrative challenges with this construct, but I welcome the attempt of of an HOA to prioritize the interests of the whole over the "rights" of the individual, which is what HOAs are in existence to do.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jul 27, 2014)

> Fair point, however I would use the word inconvenience as opposed to hardship when planning a vacation two years out. I know what the school breaks are 4 years away and if I wanted to, I could figure out what my days on/off would be two years out (I work rotational shift work based on a 56 day cycle). As long as people know the rules, then it's fair game. I' not trying to change the rules, just tell me what they are and I will try and take advantage of them the best I can.



2 years is a VERY long time - heck, most of the airlines only allow bookings within a 365 day period.  What do you say to the family that needs to wait until airfare prices come out to see if they can afford to fly a family of 4 out for the trip?  Also, a less extreme example, many families send children to summer camp and don't know what the schedule will be at 2 years out.  I'd argue that for many, planning that far out is unrealistic.  The point I was making is that this is a non-factor for the exchanger who is dumping the week into the vacation bank.  It's nothing to that owner to call up and reserve the historically most popular week without even thinking about it.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jul 28, 2014)

> You're likely correct in that this creates the situation in which bulk banking becomes necessary but, as CSXJohn points out how fair is this to those who want to exchange?



The point I was making on this was that if an owner knowingly bought a week that floats range 9-43 in Williamsburg, I don't think it would be that unfair per se for that owner to get a blended average trading power of that time period for a deposit unless it was expressly forbidden in the ownership docs for exchange policy to work this way.  It seems MUCH more unfair to me for an owner who is legitimately aspiring to stay at the resort during the summer to NEVER have an opportunity to do so year in and year out because all the summer weeks are consistently taken up by the exchangers who call the second the reservation window opens to dump their week into the RCI / II banks.  Yes, I understand that this type of owner also knew about the floating window, but realistically if you bought a prime floater for direct use one would have to figure it reasonable to expect that you would be able to reserve at least one of your top 5 week choices at a time when realistically planning your travel is possible.  My point is that while there is no skin off the back of the exchanger to commit this early to a specific week for deposit, there are many reasons why someone looking to stay at the resort could need to wait until closer than 2 years out (airline reservations being the best example).  

The real issue I have with space banking is that usually the  management company takes advantage and ends up depositing the least attractive weeks so that they can rent out the more attractive ones for profit.   That's why I don't think space banking is the BEST approach (something along the lines of Beefnot or Dioxide's suggestions would seem much more fair).


----------



## csxjohn (Jul 28, 2014)

dougp26364 said:


> No one should have priority over the other BUT, I think ALL owners should be accommodated. ......For the most part I believe we'll have to agree to disagree. It's still good to air the differences on TUG and keep everyone thinking.



We are not really disagreeing.  Different things work better for different people.  I was just trying to bring up a little different viewpoint.



pacodemountainside said:


> ...The growth of TS  has    resulted in  probably around  a dozen exchange companies  today: DAE, Red Week. SFX, OBX, TPI, Platinum Interchange,  Hawaii TS Exchange , Crown Exchange  and of course TUG  Forum come to mind.



When you trade through RedWeek you are actually trading through DAE.  They have some sort of arrangement with each other.  Just pointing this out and it does not affect what you have written.



bonk2boy said:


> ... and more importantly, owners at a particular resort tend to take better care of the resort and its amenities when they stay there than exchangers (since they own there).  ....



I've seen this stated before and I wonder if there is any evidence of this?  I treat the place I exchange into exactly the same as those I own and exactly as I treat my home.  My feeling is that most of you do the same.  If you are rough on exchange properties you are probably just as rough on owned TS properties.



Beefnot said:


> I thought that a few folks did that in this thread. ....



I have seen many people state that they believe or think that use to occupy should get some sort of priority but no real reason for that belief.  I think what I'm looking for is maybe ownership documents that may spell this out.  I can understand some people feel own to occupy should get priority, I'm just having trouble figuring out the reasoning.  

One argument I see is treating the properties different physically but I find that a weak stance.  But then again it is a reason and better than no reason if it's true.

Although I feel that all types of use should get equal access to units, I just wonder why others feel there should be differences.

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

One of my beliefs is what Ron has stated and that is to own  a fixed unit on a fixed week if you want to be absolutely sure you will get what you want every year.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 28, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> I have seen many people state that they believe or think that use to occupy should get some sort of priority but no real reason for that belief. I think what I'm looking for is maybe ownership documents that may spell this out. I can understand some people feel own to occupy should get priority, I'm just having trouble figuring out the reasoning.



I would say one, fundamental, reason is that is why any given timeshare was built, to attract individuals to want to buy and occupy. I would venture an educated guess that the overwhelming majority of the original purchasers, and perhaps even a majority of current owners at any given time, does not exchange, but rather prepares to occupy. As pointed out earlier, the HOA exists to protect the interests of the whole, not the desires of a few. So in the system I described, you get your exchange opportunity, but not before those owners who desire to occupy have gotten their opportunity.


----------



## csxjohn (Jul 28, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> I would say one, fundamental, reason is that is why any given timeshare was built, to attract individuals to want to buy and occupy. I would venture an educated guess that the overwhelming majority of the original purchasers, and perhaps even a majority of current owners at any given time, does not exchange, but rather prepares to occupy. As pointed out earlier, the HOA exists to protect the interests of the whole, not the desires of a few. So in the system I described, you get your exchange opportunity, but not before those owners who desire to occupy have gotten their opportunity.



That could be a good reason,  if it's true.

I believe the resorts are built for the sole purpose of the developer making as much money as he can without regard to future use.  The sales force will cater each sales presentation to what the prospective buyer wants to hear.

If I somehow ever totally lose my mind and go to a presentation, they will soon be telling me how wonderfully this resort will get me to other places I want to go since I'm not interested in going to the same place every year.

The person in that meeting next to me may be hearing about what a wonderful place this resort is to go to every year.

Now it may well be that most own to occupy, I've never seen any such figures, but to me, the percentage of different types of owners should not determine who gets first choice.

You do feel that matters and if you are right about the numbers then you have a good reason to feel that way.  

Even though we disagree on giving priority to one type of owner over another, you have given a good reason. Again, if it's true that most buy to use.


----------



## PassionForTravel (Jul 28, 2014)

While I don't believe that exchangers treat a property worse than owners. I think that there are reasons why it's in an HOA's best interest to give owners who use priority over owners who trade.

Owners who use are going to be a more loyal group this will manifest itself in a few areas. 

1. They will have a vested interest in the property staying nice even if it means that the MF needs to be higher because they are staying there. A trader won't care until it starts hurting their trading power at which point they will bail if they still can. 

2. They are more likely in a bad economy or when under personal financial stress to continue to pay their MF.

3. They are more likely to be interested in serving on the board.

While I do not have any proof for #1 or #2, behavioral finance studies have seen similar behavior in other fields. Anecdotally for #1 I've noticed it when observing the reaction to special assessments on Tug. 

Ian


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jul 28, 2014)

> I've seen this stated before and I wonder if there is any evidence of this? I treat the place I exchange into exactly the same as those I own and exactly as I treat my home. My feeling is that most of you do the same. If you are rough on exchange properties you are probably just as rough on owned TS properties.



If nothing else, a place occupied primarily by owners is much more likely to maintain a high rating on Trip Advisor and other travel sites.   You can say that you rate the places you own based on the same criteria as places you exchange but there is no way that is true for everyone.  There is a natural bias towards a place you own that nobody can deny exists.  An owner has a vested interest in the upkeep of the resort's reputation.


----------



## twinmommy19 (Jul 28, 2014)

Most owners are not TUG members who bought their timeshares on TUG for pennies on the dollar.   It's safe to assume that when someone buys from a developer, they are selecting a place where they'd like to stay at least sometimes.  The floating range is marketed as a feature that offers more flexibility to the buyer - not less.

I think I gave a pretty good reason for some priority in regard to making airfare reservations.  The exchanger doesn't need any time to make plans and secure flight arrangement and will always be able to jump in and take the prime weeks ahead of someone who needs to check out the flight schedule at a year out.  To me, it's not fair for the exchanger to always get the best weeks and the direct user to always get the left overs.


----------



## VegasBella (Jul 28, 2014)

I just want to point out that this is not about treating different types of owners differently, it's about treating different types of use differently. Say I owned 4 weeks at one resort and I liked to use two and trade two. I'm arguing that the reservation for the weeks I use ought to have some level of priority over the reservation for the weeks I deposit into an exchange program.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 28, 2014)

After having thought on this for some time now and considering the conern about fairness to all owners, I will give at least this one additional thought on the subject.

When I want to stay at my home resort I typically know when I want to reserve and it's typicall a 1 to 2 week window. I know the specific resort and the specific date.

I've also owned weeks that, for one reason or another, became strictly exahgne weeks. One I purchased just to exchange becasue it was inexpensive to own and keep. I never had much intention of staying at that resort and, when I gave it away recently, that was my advice, use it to exchange into more expensive timeshares.

When I was reserving to exchange, I wasn't concerned with anything other than reserving the highest value week. I had no intention of staying at my home resort that week nor did I have any intention of vacationing anywhere during that week. Instead I was going for maximum value, just in case I might need it when I finally decided where and when I wanted to vacation. At the time I made the reseration to deposit, there was no consideration as to when or where I wanted to travel, just to make the deposit and have it on hand when I needed it.

Many owners can't make plans a year or two in advance. They need to see their childrens activity schedules, school schedules et......Often weeks are purchased from the developer with the intention of using those weeks. Why would you think there are so many resorts in family destinations like Orlando, Williamsburg or Branson? Families are sold on the condo vacation for a lifetime and, when the kids are grown, exchange to more adult vacations. 

It's EASY to pick a week to exchange. It's not always obvious which week works when planning for a family vacation. Some people buy to use. I have three weeks that have never been exchanged, one in Branson, one in Breckenridge and one in S. Florida. I also have weeks that we now only exchange, all of those are in Vegas and, all are now in internal systems. I like the systems becasue there's no worry about reserving the "highest" demand week, just in case I need that power for some future exchange I might make. 

For exchangers, if you know you're not going to use your home week, it's easy to target a high demand week then sit on it until you decide where you want to go. This flexability places a hardship on owners who want to stay at their home resort, a resort they were sold and pay MF's, who don't have the flexablity to reserve, deposit and search for something interesting.

And that's why I think bulk banking serves as the most reasonable and fair system for everyone. It's not perfect but, it's as close as a resort can get to providing something for everyone. A home resort owners can easily reserve and stay at and fair trade power for those who prefer a little variety. 

BUT, with RCI's TPU's I can see a strong arguement against bulk banking UNLESS it's set up like DVC or HGVC, where points are set and values don't change. If I.I. continues to travel down the same road as RCI I could change my mind and swing back the other way.


----------

