# RCI Reduced Trading Power and Rentals



## JLB (Apr 22, 2007)

I stopped opening threads like this since they all seem to be the some old droning on, so I might have missed similar discussions, but I have recently done a few comparative searches for folks wondering what kind of trading power they have.  The results have been just a tad short of pathetic, just enough trading power so that there is some, so that something is seen, so that you don't think an error has been made by the computer in not seeing anything.

Some of them had significant trading power in the not-that-distant past.

Well, by reducing trading power, what good resorts/weeks that might be deposited-if they are any more-would not be seen, making them excess inventory, and we know where that goes.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Fern Modena (Apr 22, 2007)

_New_ thoughts?  No.  Hashed over and over, and then over some more.  But no new thoughts.


JMNSHO, of course.

Fern


----------



## JLB (Apr 22, 2007)

Well, gosh, OK, like I sayed I don't hardly never pay no attenshun to thees hear kinda diskushions.

I kinda thot it mite bee a nu twissed, free'n up gud stuf bye redoosin traden pour, so dat no'ns wud mis ut cuz tha canned sea it.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 22, 2007)

Fern Modena said:


> _New_ thoughts?  No.  Hashed over and over, and then over some more.  But no new thoughts.
> 
> 
> JMNSHO, of course.
> ...



This is your best post ever.  I completely agree.


----------



## Sue S (Apr 22, 2007)

OK, you can have my thought    If your week(s) start pulling fewer and fewer good trades you will find another use for it won't you?  Another exchange company, private rental, direct exchange?  If RCI really is renting the good inventory out aren't they eventually going to stop getting it?


----------



## JLB (Apr 22, 2007)

So, is your point(s) that this is happening and we should just accept it, or that you are bored with questions like this, and would like to not see them on your bbs any more?


----------



## JLB (Apr 22, 2007)

A real thought . . . you snuck that in while I was composing.   

I have said that when it all grinds to a halt, if it does, we will just fade away.  I haven't come up with a better solution because, for us, it is not quite fade away time.   



Sue S said:


> If your week(s) start pulling fewer and fewer good trades you will find another use for it won't you?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 22, 2007)

JLB said:


> So, is your point(s) that this is happening and we should just accept it, or that you are bored with questions like this, and would like to not see them on your bbs any more?



No, the point is that there are no "New Thoughts" on the topic.  The "Old Thoughts" just keep getting rehashed over and over again.


----------



## california-bighorn (Apr 22, 2007)

Although I routinely follow other subject areas on TUG, I rarely check "Exchanging" on TUG because we exchange infrequently. But, one of things I have thought about is that timeshare owners can now easily rent there desirable timeshares on the internet, therefore, these desirable units never even get to the exchange companies. I know we wouldn't give one of our good weeks to an exchange company. Again, this has probably been discussed in depth on TUG, but I just thought I'd throw this in.


----------



## JLB (Apr 22, 2007)

Careful now there california-bighorn person!  That might have been said before, by someone, sometime, and there appears to be a new rule against saying things they have been said before.  

To tell you the truth, I have never seen a thread suggesting that trading power has been reduced for the purpose of obtaining more inventory for rentals.  But, then, like I said, I don't follow this stuff much.

Has someone really suggested that?  Really?  Or are you just pushing my leg?


----------



## bogey21 (Apr 23, 2007)

california-bighorn said:


> But, one of things I have thought about is that timeshare owners can now easily rent there desirable timeshares on the internet, therefore, these desirable units never even get to the exchange companies. I know we wouldn't give one of our good weeks to an exchange company.



Makes sense to me.  Many of you guys talk about how you rent out a Week or two in order to cover MFs for all your Weeks.  Well if you rent some and use the others, what are left for depoit for others to exchange into.

GEORGE


----------



## johnmfaeth (Apr 23, 2007)

I'm chuckling as I read this thread as the same topics naturally come up again and again, not just exchanging. How often have you seen someone post a new thread just one week after the same topic garnered 50 replies? It's usually a newbie posting who didn't experience the old thread.

But to the poster of the thread it is still important even if it invokes a "no, not again" response for many viewers. This board is mostly for the benefit of those who seek info, not for those who know the info. It turns out that we all learn something new here regularly, regardless of the time spent in this sandbox.

So please play nice. 

Maybe I'm a little defensive because I enjoy most of JLB's posts and appreciate the time taken in posting many thousands of times.


----------



## barndweller (Apr 23, 2007)

I agree with John. If the new posters here aren't encouraged to ask questions the BB is no better than a private chat board for those special "club" members who think they have nothing more to learn. I think JLB's suggestion puts a new idea into the mix of reasons trading isn't working so well anymore.

For newbies or even seasoned bb users, the search function doesn't always help find previous discussions on a specific topic. When using a dictionary, one must have at least a general idea before he can look up the correct spelling of a word. To search for a topic on the forum one has to use a key word to find any info and it is not always easy to come up with key words that return what you really are looking for. 

There is nothing wrong with continuing to bring up old rehashed topics. If someone feels it is boring & useless for them, don't bother reading the thread.


----------



## JLB (Apr 23, 2007)

For almost ten years now I have found one repetition that I know to be fact.  That is me re-explaining, defensively, things I have already said.

It must be me, not saying things clearly.

But, my words do seem clear to me.  So maybe it's not me.

I said I have not paid attention to threads like this and I said I do not ever recall exactly this question having been this discussed.

That seems clear.

So, to me this question _is_ new, & for the life of me, I sincerely have no idea why it should bother anyone, or, if it did, why it would be necessary to say so, and distract from my desire to see if anyone really thinks that's why trading power seems to have been reduced for so many RCI members.

For those my question offends, so that I don't have to search all RCI discussions, just post a link(s) to the one(s) that discuss this exact question, and I will go see what others have said.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 23, 2007)

I'm not sure who you are referring to.  It must be me.  I never said or meant to imply that this thread should be closed and people shouldn't comment.  I said and supported others who said what I meant to say which is that there are no new thoughts or ideas on this topic.  The old arguments simply get hashed and rehashed over and over again.  That's a fact.

When there is a new idea, can you quote it and highlight it in red so I don't miss it?  I would like to learn something new on this topic.


----------



## JLB (Apr 23, 2007)

Obviously we (you and I) are deadlocked.  I, sincerely, say I have never seen this specific thought discussed before, and you say there is no new thought to be discussed.

Shows to go you how the exact same thing can be seen exactly opposite by two people.

So, do you think RCI has intentionally reduced trading power in order to make more, nicer resorts available for rentals?  Yes, or no.


----------



## JLB (Apr 23, 2007)

FWIW, in my Search to find where this question had been discussed before, I noticed that some people in similar discussions have been a tad discourteous.  I was not aware of that until now.

Perhaps some of the reaction to my question is a little _kicking of the cat_, ala Zig Ziglar.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 23, 2007)

JLB said:


> So, do you think RCI has intentionally reduced trading power in order to make more, nicer resorts available for rentals?  Yes, or no.



No, I don't.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 23, 2007)

By the way, in your search for the threads discussing this subject, just look for arguments where the crossover grid and non-accommodation products such as airline and disney tickets are used as examples for creating artificially excess inventory for rentals.   Then, look for the points advocates counter argument that it's easier to change trading power to create the exact same excess rental inventory.   Then, look for one side arguing that it's criminal to set up crossover grids to create the artificial excess inventory.  Then, look for the points advocates to claim that they prefer values that are in the public than secret.

Don't worry.  These arguments will probably be made on this exact thread.  And, even if it isn't, it will soon on the next RCI thread.


----------



## "Roger" (Apr 23, 2007)

JLB said:


> ...So, do you think RCI has intentionally reduced trading power in order to make more, nicer resorts available for rentals?  Yes, or no.


Okay, some old thoughts...

I've always said that this is a possibility within the Weeks system for what you are suggesting to occur.  If RCI can, _on average_, get everyone to take a five percent downstep in trading power (remember, that I said "on average"), then they could skim off the top and make money on rentals.  Whenever, I have said this, I got berated because obviously Points is the problem.  (Huh?  In Points, you get back what you put in. Weeks is what allows for the downward shift with skimming.  To say otherwise is to change the laws of mathematics.)

On the other hand, another possibility is that RCI is worried about the defection of the top tier owners.  To keep these top tier owners happy, RCI needs to make sure that they get something of truely comparable value to what they put in.  Letting the best trades be sucked up by savvy TUGGERs, SA owners, and the like, leaving them (the top tiered owners) with the leftovers just encourages their defection to SFX and the like.  One solution for RCI would be to tighten up on trading up. Perhaps (and all I said is "perhaps") that is what is occurring.

An observation:  Everybody posts about how RCI must be renting the really good trades.  Whenever I go to Snap Travel, the vast, vast majority of stuff I see is NOT top tier stuff.  The two most notible exceptions that I have seen or heard about were when they were renting SUNTERRA Embassy in Kauai and SUNTERRA Santa Fe units (the latter during the height of opera season).  Notice any trend here?  (Sunterra, Sunterra) Is this purely a coincidence?  (When I asked about this in a prior post, I was told that SUNTERRA is as pure as the newly fallen snow.  I know because they told me so.  Huh?)

Finally, a question for you, Jim.  What sorts of deposits are you working with?  What sorts of things are you looking at?  It sure makes a difference if you are exploring with someone's overbuilt Branson deposit vs. a Sanibel Island.  If you want help piecing the puzzle together, you have to provide us with some information too.

(In defence of Boca, many of us are tired of being belittled, berated, etc. anytime we say anything that differs from what we are told has to be the party line.  Perhaps it is unreasonable for us to just say "Forget it, no more" but you are paying the price for our scars in prior attempts to post our own thoughts and ideas.)


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 24, 2007)

Points is what creates the skimming in Weeks, because of the dishonest crossover grids that RCI has created that undervalue prime Weeks inventory when Points members or RCI itself for rentals grabs it with points via those grids.

The solution is to put a firewall between the systems to stop the Points system from picking Weeks pocket.

Points does *not* guarantee that one gets back what they put in. That assumes that the values were honestly set in the first place and are then frequently updated to correct for changes in supply and demand, neither of hwich happens in RCI Points. The numbers racket of Points is corrupted by systematic overpointing for developers in sales, overbuilt areas, and anyone else with the requisite political clout with RCI.  Others are systematically hosed in Points.  The term ''sold out resort'' has a sinister double meaning in the corrupt world of RCI points valuations.  One can trade a blue week for a prime red week in a more desirable area *WITHIN* the points system due to these thoroughly corrupt value assignments.  And with raiding the Weeks system it gets even worse with the dishonest crossover grids.

Any system that freezes values for long periods instead of letting them float with supply and demand is always going to get out of whack even if the initial values had been honestly set, which in the case of RCI Points they are not.

What allows skimming is mostly the dishonest practice of renting inventory out of the spacebank.  When one has their hand in the till, they are also likely to have their thumb on the scales.  Hopefully the class action will bring this practice to a screeching halt.




"Roger" said:


> Okay, some old thoughts...
> 
> I've always said that this is a possibility within the Weeks system for what you are suggesting to occur.  If RCI can, _on average_, get everyone to take a five percent downstep in trading power (remember, that I said "on average"), then they could skim off the top and make money on rentals.  Whenever, I have said this, I got berated because obviously Points is the problem.  (Huh?  In Points, you get back what you put in. Weeks is what allows for the downward shift with skimming.  To say otherwise is to change the laws of mathematics.)
> 
> ...


----------



## "Roger" (Apr 24, 2007)

What amazes me is that II has its own rental site and they don't even have Points.  They must be a more clever company to pull this off when they only have a Weeks system.


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 24, 2007)

*New?*

I'll try to add a new thought. 

What is having the greatest impact on availability in what used to be the only method of exchange (week for week - 80% handled by one central exchange) is fragmentation. Instead of what was nearly a central clearinghouse for all timeshare exchanges we now have a multitude of options and each is getting a good sized chunk of the pie. Just some of them are

- the rise of the mini-systems 
- the ease of direct rentals via the Internet
- the various boutique exchanges
- open points based systems
- conversion of timeshare use into third party products such as cruises

and more. With each new option more of the inventory that used to be in the central warehouse is siphoned off into a smaller niche. It doesn't take too long before all those small groups of weeks add up to 25% or more of the total. That is a big hit to availability.  And the highest value properties are the first to bolt. 

So maybe we really did see the "golden age" of timeshare exchanges, not timesharing in general, back in the 90's when by accident we nearly had one central source for all available inventory. Once that started drifting into smaller, more exclusive pockets of availability limited to only select owners the range of available trades started dropping. It wasn't any one thing or corporate action that lead to the drop but an evolution of how exchanges were handled and by whom. 

I doubt we'll ever see such a concentrated single source again.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 24, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> I'll try to add a new thought.
> 
> What is having the greatest impact on availability in what used to be the only method of exchange (week for week - 80% handled by one central exchange) is fragmentation. Instead of what was nearly a central clearinghouse for all timeshare exchanges we now have a multitude of options and each is getting a good sized chunk of the pie. Just some of them are
> 
> ...



Nope, not new.  You've argued this point before.  Very persuasively, but rehashed.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 24, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Points is what creates the skimming in Weeks, because of the dishonest crossover grids that RCI has created that undervalue prime Weeks inventory when Points members or RCI itself for rentals grabs it with points via those grids.
> 
> The solution is to put a firewall between the systems to stop the Points system from picking Weeks pocket.
> 
> ...



Nothing new here.  Same argument.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 24, 2007)

JLB said:


> Obviously we (you and I) are deadlocked.  I, sincerely, say I have never seen this specific thought discussed before, and you say there is no new thought to be discussed.
> 
> Shows to go you how the exact same thing can be seen exactly opposite by two people.
> 
> So, do you think RCI has intentionally reduced trading power in order to make more, nicer resorts available for rentals?  Yes, or no.




As you can see, the tried and true positions and arguments are already being hashed and rehashed, just like we suggested it would.

Now, what would be new is PROOF that some of the allegations against RCI actually happened beyond any reasonable doubt.  Or, a Conviction or Dismissal of the Class Action Lawsuit is achieved.  Or, the facts derived from the discovery process for the Class Action are revealed.  Those would all be great information.

Did you really believe that your question would NOT result in a thread dominated by the Hatfield and McCoy's war of words that always occurs between RCI Weeks and RCI Points?  I believe Fern and I were simply reacting to the question as another, "oh no, here we go again."


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 24, 2007)

johnmfaeth said:


> I'm chuckling as I read this thread as the same topics naturally come up again and again, not just exchanging. How often have you seen someone post a new thread just one week after the same topic garnered 50 replies? It's usually a newbie posting who didn't experience the old thread.
> 
> But to the poster of the thread it is still important even if it invokes a "no, not again" response for many viewers. This board is mostly for the benefit of those who seek info, not for those who know the info. It turns out that we all learn something new here regularly, regardless of the time spent in this sandbox.
> 
> ...



John,

You have been here since Oct '06.  When it is Oct '09, you will better understand the tone of this thread.  I've only been around since July '04 and what Fern says is correct.  For those who have been here since before the change of the millenium, they feel it even more.

This has absolutely nothing to do with people posting similar topics week after week.  You don't see me reacting to newbie posts negatively.  You see me answering their questions.  That's what we are here for.

What this is about is there are about a dozen people, myself included, who have argued and argued and argued and argued the same points over and over and over and over again.  Anything can trigger the 100 post threads that are basically bash and defend RCI threads.  It could be as simple as a newbie question regarding the location of the RCI Points crossover grid.  And, it turns into a 100 post thread.

If a simple question such as that can cause a 100 post thread, the response by Fern which was supported by me, is more easily understood.  It was not a statement to shut down a topic from further debate.  It was an exasperation that is more akin to "here we go again"

Maybe another thing that could be different is the dozen or so of us who inevitably make these ad nauseum arguments simply not post to such questions and let others jump in to offer their opinions and observations without interruption.  At least we would get other people's opinions.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Apr 24, 2007)

*Whaddya Mean Nothing Stays The Same?*




timeos2 said:


> I doubt we'll ever see such a concentrated single source again.


Not even after we attorney-whip RCI into not renting out banked timeshare weeks to non-members & to [ -- _horror of horrors_ -- ] non-owners of timeshares? 

Can't we at least get the lawyers to force RCI to let all members exchange into overbuilt Orlando FL any time they want, regardless of the offseason 1BR boondock weeks & wintertime beach weeks they deposit as trade bait? 

Are you saying we can't just go back to those _Good Old Days_ & forget about all this timeshare points & outside-rental foolishness?  Sheesh. 

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


----------



## PA- (Apr 24, 2007)

JLB said:


> .....
> 
> Some of them had significant trading power in the not-that-distant past.
> 
> ...



I have a few new thoughts, Jim.

1)  Lots of new, luxury resorts going up and selling at big bucks.  Resorts that in the not-so-distant past had good trade power are going to be affected. As an example, the Welk resort in Escondido used to be a highly sought after resort for people visiting Southern Cal.  Now resorts in Oceanside, San Diego, Newport COast, etc. are bound to impact it's desirability (and theoritically, that would affect trade power).

2)  One of the big reasons forwarded for harder trading power is the on-line trading that's done on RCI and II. It's easier for people to hold out for, and grab, the good stuff rather than just take whatever RCI tells you is a fair trade.  I believe that theory to an extent.

3)  Lots of the good stuff may very well be going into RCI Points.  After all, many of the newer resorts are affiliated with Points.  That would affect the ability of weeks owners to get the good stuff, wouldn't it?  Isn't it at least possible that RCI is telling the truth to an extent?

4)  See the thread on the BUY/SELL/RENT forum regarding the tanking of resale prices.  Every year, prices get lower in November and usually start coming back up in May.  This year, it feels different.  Many more auctions than in past ending at less $.  It tanked lower than most years, and is slower to rebound (still hasn't).   I believe we are on the verge of a drastic downshift in pricing for used timeshares.  

If it's true that there are more timeshares (even some decent ones) selling for $1 on Ebay, isn't it also possible that many of these are being bought by savvy traders who are buying them only to dump them into the exchange companies?  Wouldn't that increased supply affect trade power?  After all, when you spend $20K from the developer, chances are you at least plan to use the thing occasionally.  But Ebay buyers, in many cases, never even have seen the stuff they buy.  They're just getting them to trade in many cases.  The more fluid the market (as evidenced by ebay), the greater you would expect this to impact trade power.

And in answer to your specific question, no, I don't believe RCI is intentionally lowering trade power to hold onto good weeks.  They wouldn't need to, they could just keep anything they wanted without affecting trade power.


----------



## JLB (Apr 24, 2007)

No you don't.  That has already been declared--there are no new thoughts.   

So, I didn't read the rest of your post.   



PA- said:


> I have a few new thoughts, Jim.


----------



## JLB (Apr 24, 2007)

Interestingly, and funny from my point of few, a new thought to me came up in another similar thread I ventured into yesterday.   

A couple in that thread said they search for their own deposit.  I thought it was hilarious that one said that their trading power is so poor that they couldn't even see their own deposit.   

Well, in twenty years of playing this game, I have never thought of searching for my own deposit, checking on the supply side of that particular week at that particular resort.  So, regardless of how long, or how briefly, you have done something, I find it sad that you would conclude that there is nothing more to be said, heard, or learned about it.

So, I searched for my own deposit.  I'm glad to say I have enough trading power to see it!   

Then I called a Guide.  It was the only deposit for that week at my resort, and there were no deposits for our other weeks at the resort.  (We haven't deposited ours)

So, I learned something new, that our trading issue is not a supply side problem.

FWIW, the Guide was sharp enough to see that I was searching for our own deposit.  he started to say something about depositing too early, then caught himself and shut up.


----------



## skinsfan (Apr 24, 2007)

Actually RCI is being sued :whoopie: , here is a link to all the details
http://www.rciclassaction.com/



Sue S said:


> OK, you can have my thought    If your week(s) start pulling fewer and fewer good trades you will find another use for it won't you?  Another exchange company, private rental, direct exchange?  If RCI really is renting the good inventory out aren't they eventually going to stop getting it?


----------



## JLB (Apr 24, 2007)

Boy, I can hear the eyes rolling.   



skinsfan said:


> Actually RCI is being sued :whoopie: , here is a link to all the details
> http://www.rciclassaction.com/


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 24, 2007)

Funny, I think I caught myself rolling my eyes on that one, too.  

The RCI lawsuit has been a subject here for a long time.  You would have to have concrete proof to successfully sue a big company like RCI, but where is that going to come from?  Has to come from the inside, so we need some whistle blowers from RCI to join with owners.  The problem with that is they have no reason to care.  

JLB, even though this subject has been rehashed, there are always some other things that come out that are very interesting.  PA- makes some great points and so does John Chase.  Carolinian thinks points members are getting all the good stuff, but that is so NOT true.  Points is not pulling everything out there.  However, I have other avenues to try for vacations.  Unfortunately, this is going to require another timeshare presentation.


----------



## skinsfan (Apr 24, 2007)

JLB said:


> Boy, I can hear the eyes rolling.



Sorry I havent seen other posts about this yet, I just heard about it last week. Sorry if it's old news


----------



## AwayWeGo (Apr 24, 2007)

*How's That Case Going, Anyhow?*




skinsfan said:


> RCI is being sued


Or as it's called elsewhere on TUG, _attorney whipped_*.*  So it goes. 

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


----------



## Dani (Apr 24, 2007)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Carolinian thinks points members are getting all the good stuff, but that is so NOT true.  Points is not pulling everything out there.  However, I have other avenues to try for vacations.  Unfortunately, this is going to require another timeshare presentation.




   So very true.   Points members are definitely NOT pulling everything in the Weeks space-bank.  That is a myth that needs to be let go of.  It's just not true.  That being said, one of the few things that I have always agreed with Carolinian about is that the number of points assigned to far too many weeks is excessive.   The reason as far as I can tell....developer interest and money.  If Points values were assigned based upon actual demand, the developers would have a fit.   They certainly could not sell units at Points resorts at the inflated prices they currently ask as it would be readily apparent to even the novice timeshare buyer that all red weeks are indeed, not alike.   

  As for trading power and rentals, I agree 110% with Fern and Boca.   I don't think a new thought has emerged on ths topic in years from any side.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Apr 24, 2007)

*Everything Old Is New Again.  No, Wait -- It's Still Old.*




Dani said:


> I don't think a new thought has emerged on ths topic in years from any side.


Here's 1 that's (possibly) semi-new. 

To build up any appreciable number of timeshare points, I have do _Points For Deposit_ using my regular, plain-vanilla straight-weeks timeshares.  That's because my 1 & only points timeshare is worth just 15*,*000 points per year, period.  All it does is get me into the points system so that, if I choose, I can add to my points total via _Points For Deposit_.  Then, if I use my points to get an RCI Weeks reservation, it's not really a _Raid On The Weeks Inventory_.  As a practical matter, it's just a straight-weeks reservation that for administrative purposes takes a detour into & then back out of the points system. 

Likewise, if I use my weeks-derived points for another _Raid On The Weeks Inventory_ via _Instant Exchange_ 45 days or sooner before the check-in date, I find that only the leftover offseason & out-of-the-way timeshare weeks are offered via _Instant Exchange_. 

Some "raid." 

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


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 24, 2007)

Perhaps I never got it before, that some are dumping stuff in the system that sits there, but they are getting desirable trades in exchange (as PA- intimated).  Could be true.  There are other companies that are taking some of the inventory as well.  I think all of these little things that are happening add up to a loss of availability to some of us.  

Alternate exchange companies are truly the key to better choices for some of us.  I have used RCI points to my advantage very recently, grabbing points vacations that I would not be able to get otherwise.  I am playing the system pretty well, but I can't help but think that RCI is to blame for the many weeks for sale on ebay right now.

JLB, I always enjoy your topics.  

I know what I have to do to get the best exchanges with RCI, but I don't know if I really want to pay that much for the privilege.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Apr 24, 2007)

*You & Me Both.*




rickandcindy23 said:


> I know what I have to do to get the best exchanges with RCI, but I don't know if I really want to pay that much for the privilege.


Exactly.  You have hit the nail right on the head. 

Now that I've _Instant Exchanged_ into some splendid timeshares during my preferred travel times for only 7*,*500 points apiece, I can hardly bring myself to book a week for the regular number of points required for a straight-points exchange. 

Not only that, but in light of the foregoing & with the _Points For Deposit_ value of my regular (non-points) weeks in mind, I can't even do a conventional week-for-week timeshare exchange without thinking I'm spending too many (potential) timeshare points. 

When we took the points plunge, I _knew_ this was going to happen.  And it did.  So it goes. 

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


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 25, 2007)

The discovery phase of the lawsuit will tell the tale.

This is not a criminal case, where the standard of proof would be ''beyond a reasonable doubt''.  On the contrary it is a civil case, where the standard of proof is ''the greater weight of the evidence'', a substantially lower burden for the plaintiffs than the state would have in a criminal case.




BocaBum99 said:


> As you can see, the tried and true positions and arguments are already being hashed and rehashed, just like we suggested it would.
> 
> Now, what would be new is PROOF that some of the allegations against RCI actually happened beyond any reasonable doubt.  Or, a Conviction or Dismissal of the Class Action Lawsuit is achieved.  Or, the facts derived from the discovery process for the Class Action are revealed.  Those would all be great information.
> 
> Did you really believe that your question would NOT result in a thread dominated by the Hatfield and McCoy's war of words that always occurs between RCI Weeks and RCI Points?  I believe Fern and I were simply reacting to the question as another, "oh no, here we go again."


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 25, 2007)

Ebay is not a good indicator of resale prices.  It is a tiny fraction of the market, and is more and more dominated by the postcard companies, whose selling practices are based on dumping ownership as quickly as possible as opposed to getting the highest dollar.  A better indicator is to look at the Register of Deeds sites and look at the dollar values of all resales.  Those are NOT headed south, as least on the OBX where I watch them.

New luxury resorts and highest demand are NOT the same.  Location is the biggest factor in demand, and it is often the older resorts that are sitting on the best locations.  On the OBX, several developers including Barrier Island Station, Fairfield, and Equivest/Peppertree have over the past ten or more years searched for oceanfront sites to build a new timeshare but could not find anything availible at a size and/or price that would work for a timeshare project.  Oceanfront is what people want and those that have it have it, but new resorts apparently will not, at least on the OBX.  Similarly, in London, the older Allen House has a prime location in central London, and much higher demand than the Gold Crown Odessa Wharf way out in the Docklands.  As in other real estate, the key factors for timeshare demand are location, location, and location.




PA- said:


> I have a few new thoughts, Jim.
> 
> 1)  Lots of new, luxury resorts going up and selling at big bucks.  Resorts that in the not-so-distant past had good trade power are going to be affected. As an example, the Welk resort in Escondido used to be a highly sought after resort for people visiting Southern Cal.  Now resorts in Oceanside, San Diego, Newport COast, etc. are bound to impact it's desirability (and theoritically, that would affect trade power).
> 
> ...


----------

