# NEW limitation on Points for Deposit (PFD)



## PA- (Mar 1, 2007)

I was just told today that RCI has implemented a new limitation on PFD.  Supposedly, you are limited to 4 deposits per year.  If that's true, there are a number of people here who will be impacted BIG time (especially Bruce cz).  Anyone know if this is the case?


----------



## Spence (Mar 1, 2007)

PA- said:


> I was just told today that RCI has implemented a new limitation on PFD.  Supposedly, you are limited to 4 deposits per year.  If that's true, there are a number of people here who will be impacted BIG time (especially Bruce cz).  Anyone know if this is the case?


WOW - that's a significant change, if true!  But an understandable one from RCI's point of view, probably due to owners of mega SA weeks and CMV/SC UDIs.


----------



## PA- (Mar 1, 2007)

Spence said:


> WOW - that's a significant change, if true!  But an understandable one from RCI's point of view, probably due to owners of mega SA weeks and CMV/SC UDIs.



The reason given (who knows if it's true, the phone operators don't often know why upper management makes changes) was that too many PFDs take too much inventory from the weeks side, and creates an imbalance.  Seems to me that RCI could just balance their books by putting some of the weeks deposited into the weeks inventory, instead of points.  Why would RCI willingly give up deposits from anywhere?  They can do what they want with them, and even if they go unused, they've got the $26 per deposit.

BTW, what's SC UDIs?


----------



## geekette (Mar 1, 2007)

"Creates an imbalance" - are you making that up?!?  Sorry, strikes me as deja vu!

CMV UDI, SC UDI:  Christmas Mountain Village, Wisconsin Dells - that's where Bruce owns, I dunno, half the property     ; Shenandoah Crossing, Gordonsville, VA

UDIs allow MANY reservations per year.  

So for Bruce, if he's limited to 4 deposits a year, that's a HUGE comedown in the amount of points he can accumulate in a year.


----------



## "Roger" (Mar 1, 2007)

That would be interesting.  I've always posted don't count on PDF if you are thinking of getting into Points -- its not part of the membership agreement.

PS - I'm not trying to toot my own horn with this comment.  Rather, I'm just trying to say such a move is hardly unimaginable.  PDF was mostly a way for RCI to let Points members use the Points system for resorts that they own that weren't part of the system.  I don't think they envisioned that people would use it as a cheap backdoor to a Points membership.


----------



## geekette (Mar 1, 2007)

I agree completely with you, Roger.  RCI reserves the right to make new rules when they want to.  

I'm just surprised that they appear to be 'protecting' Weeks owners -- if the stated reason is true.  It'd be equally easy to restrict Points to Points.  But that would be a major downer for existing Points owners.

Probably limiting PFD doesn't hurt the avg timesharer and mostly hampers the Super Users.


----------



## boyblue (Mar 1, 2007)

Your VG must be wrong, because CZ would have already told us something.  Unless it's something that will be implemented in the near future (sort of how we found out about the $26.00 fee).


----------



## PA- (Mar 1, 2007)

boyblue said:


> Your VG must be wrong, because CZ would have already told us something.  Unless it's something that will be implemented in the near future (sort of how we found out about the $26.00 fee).



According to the person I spoke with, the rule was only implemented 2 weeks ago.  It's easily possible that Bruce has been on a 2 week binge, and may be sleeping it off for another week or 2.


----------



## Spence (Mar 1, 2007)

PA- said:


> According to the person I spoke with, the rule was only implemented 2 weeks ago.  It's easily possible that Bruce has been on a 2 week binge, and may be sleeping it off for another week or 2.


or just off his meds?


----------



## Spence (Mar 1, 2007)

on a similar vein, doesn't Fairfield/Wyndham limit the amount of PICs you can do?..  same parent company.


----------



## geekette (Mar 1, 2007)

OR, he's busy using the 8 zillion points he's accumulated!!


----------



## sfwilshire (Mar 1, 2007)

PA- said:


> According to the person I spoke with, the rule was only implemented 2 weeks ago.  It's easily possible that Bruce has been on a 2 week binge, and may be sleeping it off for another week or 2.



I think he ask about it several days ago in Ask RCI. 

Sheila


----------



## "Roger" (Mar 1, 2007)

Following up on what Sheila posted, I found this message from Madge (I left out part of her response that was relevant only to a situation that Bruce was trying to resolve)...

_"In December of last year, RCI made an adjustment to the Points-for-Deposit program. While I am not aware that this has been communicated to our Points member base on the whole, it is being conveyed to members individually as they inquire about the program. 

Points-for-Deposit was initiated as a promotional benefit to help grow the RCI Points program when it was new. It was not intended to be a permanent benefit of RCI Points membership, but we chose to continue it because it was popular with our members and we could continue to support it. Adjustments such as the 4-deposit limit have been rare thus far; however, this and other adjustments may become necessary in order to keep the program viable. 

While RCI was not compelled to provide it, I can appreciate that advance notice of this change would have represented good service to our members who use the benefit. I'm sorry to hear that you were caught unawares."_


----------



## wbtimesharer (Mar 1, 2007)

I think Sir Bruce was well aware of it.   Being a multi-UDI owner, it cramps my style but I will still be able to generate well over 100,000 points for around $350 even with that restriction.   I generally won't deposit more than 4 a year anyway with all the other things I do with the weeks.

Of course, if one gets creative one can find ways to work within the rules but it will just cost a bit more.  Also, this rule will reduce the number of rentals available for CMV through RCI and open up availability at the resort.

Throw me lemons, I make lemonade.  

Bill


----------



## Dottie (Mar 1, 2007)

Once again, it sounds like RCI is shooting itself in the foot.  Owners with "dog" weeks will just look for other places to exchange and RCI will lose out on exchange fees plus the now $26 conversion fee.

I am a points member and do fall withing the limit of 4, so no problem for me there.  I would not call the points program a success.  Most of the time I am forced to use the points for weeks trade as the points side just does not have enough choices or I find the price in points higher than I am willing to pay.  Without the conversion feature and the ability to "raid" weeks, there is no way I would continue my points membership.


----------



## wbtimesharer (Mar 1, 2007)

Dottie said:


> Once again, it sounds like RCI is shooting itself in the foot.  Owners with "dog" weeks will just look for other places to exchange and RCI will lose out on exchange fees plus the now $26 conversion fee.
> 
> I am a points member and do fall withing the limit of 4, so no problem for me there.  I would not call the points program a success.  Most of the time I am forced to use the points for weeks trade as the points side just does not have enough choices or I find the price in points higher than I am willing to pay.  Without the conversion feature and the ability to "raid" weeks, there is no way I would continue my points membership.




Dottie, 

Well everyone I talk to thinks that because there are so many morons in timesharing, that RCI can raise its membership rates to 100,000 a year, PFD to a 500,000 a deposit, and exchanges to a billion or so .  

My opinion is that RCI will keep raising rates until there is a significant drop in renewals, deposits and exchanges.  I personal only see myself using points for maybe Disney tickets or short stays.  I am not a big fan of RCI weeks already due to the high exchange fee compared to II. And using points to buy into weeks and getting the double whammy of point cost + plus weeks exchange fee :annoyed:  well not a big fan. 

As it is still economically feasible to build points using PFD, I will continue to play.  However, RCI is edging towards the break even line that if crossed I will probably use my points resort week and forget about dabbling in points.

I am also taking a look at BlueGreen's points, to see how they stack up against RCI.  I understand from the resident experts that they have a PFD as well.  I like BlueGreen for the most part although it sounds like they are starting to enforce rules to squeeze out resale buyers.  

So, it could be that every points program is starting to see green and it will be a mad scramble to see how much the timesharing public can be squeezed before people start to bail out of the programs.

Bill


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 2, 2007)

As a Weeks member, I must say that this is a good move by RCI, and they should not stop there.  Hopefully they will shut down both PFD and crossover trades completely.  Points has been a mooching leech on the back of Weeks for way too long.


----------



## Dottie (Mar 2, 2007)

Carolinian--I actually agree with you but the "one more" I would like to see is that they completely end the points program.  I belong to points because under current rules, it is a good place to be.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 2, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> As a Weeks member, I must say that this is a good move by RCI, and they should not stop there.  Hopefully they will shut down both PFD and crossover trades completely.  Points has been a mooching leech on the back of Weeks for way too long.



Carolinian,

You actually got this backwards.  This helps weeks owners less because now they have fewer options for using their weeks.

This does not impact an RCI Points owner from booking RCI weeks.  They can still do that and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

You should start getting worried about Fairfield and WorldMark.  Both of them have the ability to unilaterally book RCI weeks, just like RCI Points does.

You think RCI Points overaverages?  Well, WorldMark is a fixed value for all trades based on season and unit type.

There is no finger large enough to put into that Dike.  It looks like this crossover trade practice will only grow over time.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 2, 2007)

*It doesn't hurt Points but does hurt weeks (again)*



Carolinian said:


> As a Weeks member, I must say that this is a good move by RCI, and they should not stop there.  Hopefully they will shut down both PFD and crossover trades completely.  Points has been a mooching leech on the back of Weeks for way too long.



The PFD system is a grasp to keep weeks coming in to RCI that otherwise will go elsewhere - and not to II in most cases. If PFD ceased to exist the type of week that is being deposited would most likely move to a Wyndham PIC type program which most of the mini-systems offer. So it would further dilute the stream of incoming deposits of weeks to RCI and force more into the waiting hands of the mini's who hold priority rights to, as often said, "raid" the best of whats left of the staggering weeks systems.  RCI made a great choice in creating PFD and I have no problem with a 4 deposit annual limit. I just hope it doesn't go lower or RCI Points may loose their appeal for us.  Of course eventually RCI is likely to move all deposits to points, hopefully at little or no cost, so the issue will be moot. The hallowed class action may help greatly accelerate that process.  Maybe we should rename RCI Weeks the RCI FAX system in honor of the orphaned weeks owners of the system formerly known as Fairfield. May they forever enjoy trade amongst themselves in a wonderful, closed, weeks only system. I don't think you'll find those that belong with trade in mind to be very happy in that very limited world.


----------



## PA- (Mar 2, 2007)

Weeks, Schmeeks.  Points, Scmhoints.  We owners could care less what RCI calls their exchange programs, and don't want 2 seperate programs.  I've talked to several execs at RCI, and they understand fully that the points system was implemented poorly.  Particularly the way they allowed brokers to cut themselves into the action.  In my discussions, I believe what RCI will move to in the near future is a single exchange program that allows owners to deposit their week, then do what they want with it.  All inventory will be in one pool, not 2.  As soon as you deposit your week, you have a certain number of points to use OR a 1 week deposit to use.  If you want to trade for another week, the old model based on trade power, supply/demand, like for like, etc. will apply.  If you want to trade for nightly stays at timeshares that allow them, or for airline tickets or whatever, you use the points generated from your deposit.  

Points for Deposit, under the above scenario, wouldn't be needed.  All deposits by any RCI member would get a certain number of points that could be used if you don't want a traditional week for week exchange.  The biggest advantage of the points program would still exist; the ability to trade down and get "change", or the ability to deposit multiple weeks to trade up.  And the best part, you wouldn't need to decide how you want to use your deposit until you actually use it.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 2, 2007)

RCI executives must be smoking something if they think they can easily implement such a system.

All inventory in one pool and you pick the set of rules you want to use for trade?   ROFLMAO.

This could be the single dumbest idea timeshare has ever seen.  This will surely be the Edsel of timesharing.

Early in my career, my company was involved in a merger of roughly 2 equal sized companies.  I recall vividly the merger activities since I was involved in them.

The new executive team had 12 members on it.  Only 5 were actually needed, but each top executive needed a job. So, they created 12.

There were 2 networks that needed to be merged into one.  Well guess what?  Network features don't merge like that.

The tagline and mantra for the merger was "The best of both worlds.  Brining the best together"

Needless to say, that was the single dumbest idea every conceived.  The sales team sold features of both networks to the customer.  It required every feature on one network to be developed on the other.  It was a complete and total disaster.  It took 5 years to fix that single error.  I know, I was involved in the long clean up process.

If what you are saying is correct, this will be the end of RCI.  There will be no way to recover from this blunder in judgement.

If RCI wants to move to ONE system, they need to pick one and move all customers to it.   Assign every week a point value.  Tell all customers what they will be worth and let them trade for any week of equal of lesser point value.  They can let the excess points expire.

I can't wait to see this one play out.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 2, 2007)

*Its the only real answer - one system*



BocaBum99 said:


> RCI executives must be smoking something if they think they can easily implement such a system.
> 
> All inventory in one pool and you pick the set of rules you want to use for trade?   ROFLMAO.



Boca - I'm not as down on it as you obviously are. I don't think it matters what they call it. As long as the deposit gets XXX points if the user wants to think they are using the week for week system let them - they can commit all the assigned points for a single week use even if the actual value in points is less. If they need more then their "VEP" is too low - they don't have enough trade power (points).  It wouldn't really be both - it would be points with a weeks only overlay. That would work. Actually trying to maintain two systems under one would in fact lead to the disaster you describe. But they need to move on and get one, single system implemented soon or the death spiral is likely to continue on both existing systems. The cost to move to points is too high. Not from RCI but through the developer feeding conversion system they allowed. Almost everyone except a handful of die hards would switch to points in a heartbeat if the  cost was the $199 they actually get. But it is not very often that the value is there for a $3000+ conversion.  Simplify, pick a course and go. The current two tier system cannot be maintained much longer.


----------



## "Roger" (Mar 2, 2007)

Two comments...

"Weeks, Schmeeks. Points, Scmhoints...."  In somewhat a similar vein, I doubt that more than one-half of one percent of the Points owenrs are affected by the no more than four Points for Deposits per year rule.  For most people, this is a total non-issue.

With regard to the rest of PA's post (bombshell?), if RCI would do that, they would have to make public some semblance of what the trading power is for all weeks.  I would welcome that, but won't that throw a bunch of TUGGERs into conniptions as they second guess the assigned values?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 2, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Boca - I'm not as down on it as you obviously are. I don't think it matters what they call it. As long as the deposit gets XXX points if the user wants to think they are using the week for week system let them - they can commit all the assigned points for a single week use even if the actual value in points is less. If they need more then their "VEP" is too low - they don't have enough trade power (points).  It wouldn't really be both - it would be points with a weeks only overlay. That would work. Actually trying to maintain two systems under one would in fact lead to the disaster you describe. But they need to move on and get one, single system implemented soon or the death spiral is likely to continue on both existing systems. The cost to move to points is too high. Not from RCI but through the developer feeding conversion system they allowed. Almost everyone except a handful of die hards would switch to points in a heartbeat if the  cost was the $199 they actually get. But it is not very often that the value is there for a $3000+ conversion.  Simplify, pick a course and go. The current two tier system cannot be maintained much longer.



John,

If this is indeed just a complete move over to a point system, then I agree, it will be fine.  However, I am not sure that is what PA is saying.  He is implying that it will be the same two systems pulling the same inventory.

But, there are 2 things inherently different about RCI weeks vs. RCI points.

1) trading power values allegedly change.  That means that the values will be different in both systems on any given day.  If they do this, tuggers will have a field day pillaging and arbitraging the differences between the systems.

2) points systems are a first come first serve system.  All inventory is loaded in at the same time to allow for predictability of availability.  Weeks systems randomly deposit.  The inventory management philosophy of a weeks system vs. a points system don't fundamentally work together.  They will have to choose one if the inventory is the same for both systems.   That will dictate what type of system it really is.

We can count on two things happening for sure.   First, RCI will blow the execution of the merge.  Second, fees will be a lot higher.


----------



## PA- (Mar 2, 2007)

Bombshell?  I hardly think so.  In fact, it would be more incredible if, 5 or 10 years from now, RCI was still supporting 2 flawed systems, rather than taking the best of both and implementing into one system.

Look, I don't have access to the top brass at RCI.  But in discussions with execs there, they have indicated that they are aware of, and working on the major flaws with both.  While they wouldn't come out and tell me what's likely to happen, they did make remarks that lead me to believe these things will come to pass.  They confirmed that RCI is aware or, and working on the following flaws.

1)  involvement of middlemen
2)  weaknesses of points, including inability to put in a search and the problem that there are many people who were told, but didn't understand or remember that their week would be automatically taken.
3)  weaknesses of weeks, including inability to trade up very much, or get change for trades down.

If you fix those weaknesses in both systems, you get toward a single system that will work for most.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 2, 2007)

Until it is stopped judicially or legislatively.  




BocaBum99 said:


> Carolinian,
> 
> You actually got this backwards.  This helps weeks owners less because now they have fewer options for using their weeks.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 2, 2007)

Obviously then, they are not working on the biggest flaw in Points, the screwball numbers racket ranging from deliberately overpointed areas / resorts to the gross overaveraging in categories that are far too broad.  It would seem that fairness to members is not even on the table.




PA- said:


> Bombshell?  I hardly think so.  In fact, it would be more incredible if, 5 or 10 years from now, RCI was still supporting 2 flawed systems, rather than taking the best of both and implementing into one system.
> 
> Look, I don't have access to the top brass at RCI.  But in discussions with execs there, they have indicated that they are aware of, and working on the major flaws with both.  While they wouldn't come out and tell me what's likely to happen, they did make remarks that lead me to believe these things will come to pass.  They confirmed that RCI is aware or, and working on the following flaws.
> 
> ...


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 2, 2007)

Yeah and they can call it RCI Weoints.  Bringing the best of both worlds to RCI Weeks and RCI Points owners.

There are 3 ways to achieve any merge.  First, they can take the two systems and cobble them together.  Second, they can pick one, move everyone else to it and scrap the other one.  Third, they can build a new one and move everyone.

Options 1 and 3 NEVER work.  Number 3 will take until the year 2100 to develop.  So, if they start down that path, they will never get there.  It will be running 3 systems at triple the cost.  Option 1 is the disaster situation I told you that I experienced in past lives.  It automatically forces double development for each feature which will be quickly or not so quickly killed by lack of developers to do the coding.

The only viable option is to pick one and move everyone to the other one.  And, the faster they do it, the faster they can get over the customer service distaster that wil be on their hands.

My prediction is that they will modify the RCI Points platform to the point that it looks as much like RCI weeks as possible.  Then, they will simply keep increasing prices until people leave or move to the new thing.  They will, of course, provide incentives for the move.  It's the only viable strategy that exists.

This is coming from someone with 20 years experience doing stuff exactly like this.   It's painful.  Very very painful.  That's why I no longer do it.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 2, 2007)

No, most of them would probably go into another weeks based program, either at RCI or elsewhere.

If RCI tries to cram its crappy dishonest Points system down weeks members throats, whether or not for extra cost, a large number are going to flea elsewhere, and probably not to those over hyped mini-systems.  The first syllable tells you all you need to know about them - ''mini''.



timeos2 said:


> The PFD system is a grasp to keep weeks coming in to RCI that otherwise will go elsewhere - and not to II in most cases. If PFD ceased to exist the type of week that is being deposited would most likely move to a Wyndham PIC type program which most of the mini-systems offer. So it would further dilute the stream of incoming deposits of weeks to RCI and force more into the waiting hands of the mini's who hold priority rights to, as often said, "raid" the best of whats left of the staggering weeks systems.  RCI made a great choice in creating PFD and I have no problem with a 4 deposit annual limit. I just hope it doesn't go lower or RCI Points may loose their appeal for us.  Of course eventually RCI is likely to move all deposits to points, hopefully at little or no cost, so the issue will be moot. The hallowed class action may help greatly accelerate that process.  Maybe we should rename RCI Weeks the RCI FAX system in honor of the orphaned weeks owners of the system formerly known as Fairfield. May they forever enjoy trade amongst themselves in a wonderful, closed, weeks only system. I don't think you'll find those that belong with trade in mind to be very happy in that very limited world.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 2, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Until it is stopped judicially or legislatively.



And, that is not likely to happen.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 2, 2007)

That will a big incentive for their weeks-based competitors to move in and capture the business.




BocaBum99 said:


> Yeah and they can call it RCI Weoints.  Bringing the best of both worlds to RCI Weeks and RCI Points owners.
> 
> There are 3 ways to achieve any merge.  First, they can take the two systems and cobble them together.  Second, they can pick one, move everyone else to it and scrap the other one.  Third, they can build a new one and move everyone.
> 
> ...


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 2, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> No, most of them would probably go into another weeks based program, either at RCI or elsewhere.
> 
> If RCI tries to cram its crappy dishonest Points system down weeks members throats, whether or not for extra cost, a large number are going to flea elsewhere, and probably not to those over hyped mini-systems.  The first syllable tells you all you need to know about them - ''mini''.




Actually, they won't leave RCI enmasse.  That's because RCI won't let them know what is happening beneath the covers.  

Most RCI exchangers don't even know they have a choice.  Do you actually think that RCI will tell them about alternatives?

And, their resorts would have to support a communication plan that would support mass defections.  It won't happen.

RCI will cram it down their throats and most RCI weeks owners will say "thank you, sir, may I have another?"

Not saying I like this.  But, it's a likely scenario.


----------



## JMS (Mar 2, 2007)

So if they are moving to one system, then do you convert existing "weeks" into points or leave them alone till they figure out what they are doing?


----------



## geekette (Mar 2, 2007)

I also think they will move to one system eventually.  That it will be seriously flawed at first and then just typical RCI-flawed later.  Poorly implemented, poorly communicated, poorly functioning.  They will continue to raise rates at a ridiculous pace.  And many of their members will remain their members through all of it because they don't know there are options or don't want to go to the trouble to change or their resort management doesn't know there are options or says there are not.

RCI is very entertaining to watch.  I can't imagine there is a programmer left in Indy that would work there.  The every Saturday night committment is a huge thing to ask a geek.  That does make the 'whole new system' plan problematic.  2100 is a conservative guess.


----------



## brucecz (Mar 2, 2007)

Well being as dumb as I am I have decided to adopt any and all poor unwanted foresaken CMV UDI's that their present owners want to donate to get out from those terriable $700 + yearly maintenances fees.  

I will   even pay the transfer-closing costs for all CMV ownerships seeing that that many poor CMV UDI's may become  unwanted and put them into my megar collection of :annoyed:  unwanted crappy timeshares.

No thanks is needed.

Bruce


----------



## PerryM (Mar 2, 2007)

*RCI Points V RCI Weeks – Part 666*

Oh wow, RCI Points V RCI Weeks – Part 666

I’ve got an idea for folks – let’s just use links to past posts if the topic, question, or answer has been already been said on TUG again and again and again.

You know we do have the ability to use different size fonts and colors.

So some links could be red and BIG to indicate they've been said 20+ times.


I don’t know about you but reading a juicy post with 20+ links has be all worked up.

I’m going to sit this one out.

If there’s something new that hasn’t been said before, please someone send me a PM.

Until then there's some paint on the wall that I need to watch dry.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 2, 2007)

*Can't be forced to operate*



Carolinian said:


> Until it is stopped judicially or legislatively.



No court can force RCI to continue to operate a weeks system if they don't wish to under the rules so dictated. It could stop them from operating one and renting weeks which would guarantee that the system would be terminated. So RCI changes to all points - under court order no less - and the fatally flawed system is out of their hair and its not even their fault. Maybe thats why they are going through this exercise in futility.


----------



## "Roger" (Mar 2, 2007)

Okay, I'll take a try at this.  

Let's imagine RCI comes out with a book that has point totals for Point resorts as they now exist.  They add point values for the current Weeks resorts.  Weeks owners are told that they can only trade one-for-one and no more than 15% up.  (I am pulling that number out of the air and don't intend to defend it as the "correct" one.)

Now consider the reaction of two owners of high end resorts.  Owner P is in the Points system and pretty much says "Oh hum.  This is just what I already am using.  They simply have added point values to every individual resort."  

Owner W is in the Weeks system.  She looks at the book (remember, she is a high end user) and sees some equal trades, a few upward trades (not necessarily at destinations where she has any intentions to go) AND a lot of downward trades (scads of them).  She calls RCI and wants to know why she should give up her superior resort for a lesser one.  That doesn't seem fair.  (While these trades down never bothered her that much before, now that she sees her loss quantified and she also talks to her neighbor P and sees what he is getting -- now it is irritating.)  RCI says there is a solution.  Join the Points program. The only question is will she be allowed to do that directly or will she have to lobby her resort's HOA that it join the Points program?

It won't take long before the Weeks program is the old system that Carolinian wishes for -- lots of older timeshares with no GC's, a few SC's, and lots of ordinary resorts, all of about the same quality.  They can trade one-for-one and there will be no issues of trading up or down.  In fact, the very size of the Weeks system will be more like the "golden" old days before the explotion of timeshares spurred in part by the hotel chains getting in the mix and upgrading the quality.

Meanwhile, most of the action in timesharing will have migrated to Points.


----------



## wbtimesharer (Mar 2, 2007)

*And if Bruce is on vacation I'll take them from you*

Hey,

If Bruce is away on one of many weeks of vacation and you really really need to unload that horrible, expensive, unusable UDI, please, please, please don't hesitate to contact me.  I'll beat Bruce's offering price by 10%.

As for RCI points versus weeks.  The last time I checked, in order to get to RCI weeks inventory you not only sacrifice points, but you also pay the full exchange fee.  In order to get those points, you not only have to deposit something you have to pay to deposit that something plus the cost of your own Maintenance fee.  

I don't know how anyone can look at it as stealing.  Heck if you want to complain, complain about RCI's last call/last minute reservations where you can rent the week for cheaper than getting it via points.  

And if you deposit a crappy week for points, that does not give you access to the top weeks because you won't have enough points.  In order to get enought points to get a prime week  you essentially have to deposit multiple weeks.

Last time I checked, crappy weeks come with MF.  Even then, the odds of grabbing a prime week at a prime resort is iffy.  Most people either rent or use their prime week prime resort units.  Case in point, DVC.  Of course, RCI doesn't have DVC inventory which is another reason crying about points having weeks access doesn't make sense.

I personally have no issue with RCI either going all points or all weeks.  However its not likely going to happen until all resorts become points resorts at which time RCI PFD goes away as RCI doesn't allow weeks PFD from points resorts.

Ahhhh, but nothing like a good arguement to stir the blood. 


Bill


----------



## PA- (Mar 2, 2007)

brennumtimesharer said:


> Hey,
> 
> ...
> I personally have no issue with RCI either going all points or all weeks.  However its not likely going to happen until all resorts become points resorts at which time RCI PFD goes away as RCI doesn't allow weeks PFD from points resorts.
> ...



My original point was that all resorts CAN become points resorts as soon as RCI wants them to.  Of course, the resort has to agree to nightly stays, rather than weekly stays.  But nightly stays aren't a requirement for points resorts anyway.

If RCI tomorrow assigned specific points for all resorts, people depositing could have the option of getting points for their deposits.  And there's no reason they'd need to decide until they're ready to use the deposit.  If they just want a week for week exchange, they could put in a search and hope they get it.  Or, if they don't have the trade power, they could have the option of using 2 year's deposits at their resort for 1 week at a better resort (or in a bigger unit or whatever) and possibly get some "change" back, for a last minute exchange or whatever. 

There's nothing keeping RCI from implementing the best features of both systems into one, and allowing people to do what they want with their deposit.  And as for the complicated paperwork required to "convert", that wouldn't be necessary if they eliminate the automatic deposit of your weeks into the points system.  

This isn't that complicated.  It's more complicated to leave it like it is, with 2 different systems.

There's a reason they went to points.  Whether you believe it was to battle the mini-systems or whatever, there are definately features of a points system that appeals to a large number of people.  Points won't go away.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 2, 2007)

The first bailouts from RCI's changes are already happening.  Some will, indeed, not know about alternatives, and just get out of timesharing or at least of exchanging.

The real problem in any points system is the low point weeks.  This is the focus of a lot of the legal attacks on Sunterra points in Europe, for example.
Right now, the Weeks 45-day window is the crutch they use in selling low point weeks in Points.  Do away with that and there is no longer a crutch for those weeks.  Since points is a pure exchange system rather than a own of use system, those low value weeks become a much bigger problem for them than they are for Weeks.




BocaBum99 said:


> Actually, they won't leave RCI enmasse.  That's because RCI won't let them know what is happening beneath the covers.
> 
> Most RCI exchangers don't even know they have a choice.  Do you actually think that RCI will tell them about alternatives?
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 2, 2007)

You have the fatally flawed system that needs to be put out to pasture backward.  That system is Points, with its corrupt numbers racket.

What the courts can stop is the fraud of raiding one system' assets to pump up the other.



timeos2 said:


> No court can force RCI to continue to operate a weeks system if they don't wish to under the rules so dictated. It could stop them from operating one and renting weeks which would guarantee that the system would be terminated. So RCI changes to all points - under court order no less - and the fatally flawed system is out of their hair and its not even their fault. Maybe thats why they are going through this exercise in futility.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 2, 2007)

Many timesharers want nothing to do with a points system, period, especially one where the numbers are as corrupt as RCI Points.  Having more points assigned often has not the slightest thing to do with being a ''better'' resort, just being more succesful in politicking RCI.

The resorts that are not points resorts, which is the majority of them, for the most part do not want to be points resorts.



PA- said:


> My original point was that all resorts CAN become points resorts as soon as RCI wants them to.  Of course, the resort has to agree to nightly stays, rather than weekly stays.  But nightly stays aren't a requirement for points resorts anyway.
> 
> If RCI tomorrow assigned specific points for all resorts, people depositing could have the option of getting points for their deposits.  And there's no reason they'd need to decide until they're ready to use the deposit.  If they just want a week for week exchange, they could put in a search and hope they get it.  Or, if they don't have the trade power, they could have the option of using 2 year's deposits at their resort for 1 week at a better resort (or in a bigger unit or whatever) and possibly get some "change" back, for a last minute exchange or whatever.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 2, 2007)

Last minute inventory in the leisure trvael industry is distressed inventory.  Reduced trading power there is absolutely nothing to complain about.  You also get reduced trading power for last minute deposits.

The generic points grids substantially undervalue prime Weeks inventory through the methodology of overaveraging.  That is where the looting comes in.  You can take a blue points week inland and snatch a prime summer oceanfront beach red week in a crossover trade, and that is just a fraudulent way for RCI to set up the system.




brennumtimesharer said:


> Hey,
> 
> If Bruce is away on one of many weeks of vacation and you really really need to unload that horrible, expensive, unusable UDI, please, please, please don't hesitate to contact me.  I'll beat Bruce's offering price by 10%.
> 
> ...


----------



## PA- (Mar 2, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Many timesharers want nothing to do with a points system, period, especially one where the numbers are as corrupt as RCI Points.  Having more points assigned often has not the slightest thing to do with being a ''better'' resort, just being more succesful in politicking RCI.
> 
> The resorts that are not points resorts, which is the majority of them, for the most part do not want to be points resorts.



If RCI goes ahead with this move, it won't be necessary anymore for resorts to be "points resorts".  Members of RCI would deposit their weeks and use them as they wish.  The resorts wouldn't know the difference.  Remember, this isn't about what "timeshares" want, it's about what the RCI members want.


----------



## "Roger" (Mar 2, 2007)

PA- said:


> If RCI goes ahead with this move, it won't be necessary anymore for resorts to be "points resorts".  Members of RCI would deposit their weeks and use them as they wish.  The resorts wouldn't know the difference.  Remember, this isn't about what "timeshares" want, it's about what the RCI members want.


With RCI Europe, individual members can join Points even if their resort has not.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 2, 2007)

PA- said:


> If RCI goes ahead with this move, it won't be necessary anymore for resorts to be "points resorts".  Members of RCI would deposit their weeks and use them as they wish.  The resorts wouldn't know the difference.  Remember, this isn't about what "timeshares" want, it's about what the RCI members want.



Yeah, and every survey I've seen shows that the majority of timeshare owners want nothing to do with points.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 2, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> With RCI Europe, individual members can join Points even if their resort has not.



Is that the ''pure points'' concept you are talking about?  One wonders what, if anything RCI uses to back them up?


----------



## PA- (Mar 2, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Yeah, and every survey I've seen shows that the majority of timeshare owners want nothing to do with points.



Yes, but don't you see, Steve?  It has nothing to do with what the "majority of timeshare owners want"?  It only has to do with what YOU want.  If you want to deposit your week into weeks, or points, you shouldn't have to worry about what your resort wants, or what the majoirty want.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 2, 2007)

*Send the shysters back to ambulance chasing*



PA- said:


> Yes, but don't you see, Steve?  It has nothing to do with what the "majority of timeshare owners want"?  It only has to do with what YOU want.  If you want to deposit your week into weeks, or points, you shouldn't have to worry about what your resort wants, or what the majoirty want.



Exactly. No class action - trying to hold on to the past or the perceived future by forcing companies into unworkable procedures and limits - can accomplish what should be the obvious goal. Let owners do what they want with the time they own. Let the free market decide what works best. If that means both the secret and open survive so be it. If it means an end to one or the other so be that. The best result will naturally occur if left alone. Anything shoved down owners and/or companies throats by uninformed judicial action will die anyway. No matter which view "wins".


----------



## "Roger" (Mar 3, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Is that the ''pure points'' concept you are talking about?  One wonders what, if anything RCI uses to back them up?


No, its not pure points that I'm talking about.


----------



## prasadv1 (Mar 4, 2007)

PA- said:


> I was just told today that RCI has implemented a new limitation on PFD.  Supposedly, you are limited to 4 deposits per year.  If that's true, there are a number of people here who will be impacted BIG time (especially Bruce cz).  Anyone know if this is the case?



The VC at RCI told me that the limitation is 4 deposits per year per resort.
It is not as bad as I thougt.
Prasad.


----------



## Cayuga (Mar 4, 2007)

prasadv1 said:


> The VC at RCI told me that the limitation is 4 deposits per year per resort.
> It is not as bad as I thougt.
> Prasad.



That's interesting!! Is it a maximum of 4 deposits per resort or a total of 4 pfd's per year regardless of what resorts they come from?


----------



## brucecz (Mar 4, 2007)

The supervisor I am working with definately stated 4 deposits per resort per year per account.

I was also told that seeing that  resort numbers 1115 and  3662 are considered seperate resorts in the  RCI Catalog you can deposit a total of  8 deposits from those 2 resorts per year per each RCI Points account.

That is 8 deposits per each (one) RCI Points account.

Of course their are so  very few of the resort number 3662 UDI's around for people to :whoopie: use for that purpose.

Bruce



Cayuga said:


> That's interesting!! Is it a maximum of 4 deposits per resort or a total of 4 pfd's per year regardless of what resorts they come from?


----------



## Mel (Mar 5, 2007)

Have we truly considered why RCI has chosen to limit PFD?  They say it has something to do with balance.

Maybe this is the answer to other issues -like how RCI balances the inventiry taken from WEEKs to satisfy points exchanges.  When RCI takes PFD weeks, they don;t actually go into the points program - points members can't reserve those weeks through points because those resorts aren't points resorts.  Thus RCI must hold those deposits in reserve, to put back into the weeks system whenever someone takes something else out. 

It sounds like, as a balance issue, RCI wants to reduce the number of weeks it is holding in reserve.  This suggests that more weeks are going into PFD than are being put back into RCI to satisfy trades.  Maybe the average points owner is actually staying at points resorts?  Too bad we don's have the data to see what is really happening.

If these RCI is seeing too many PFD deposits, maybe the generic grids aren't so unfair after all?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 5, 2007)

Melinda,

My guess is that some manager at RCI was looking at a report of the Points for Deposit program and noticed some odd behavior at a few resorts.  There probably were a few outlier resorts where they were getting far more than the average number of deposits.

Then, they decided to look into it more closely and found that a handful of owners were depositing a ton of weeks for a select few resorts.  They then did an assessment of how profitable those weeks were for them and they decided that the rentals and/or exchanges they were getting for those deposits were losing money.  So, they put a cap on it to fix their problem.

If RCI were making a ton of money on those deposits, they would encourage them to continue.  There really isn't any other reason to stop the practice.


----------



## Dani (Mar 5, 2007)

This really does not sound like a big deal to me even if we are now limited to 4 PFD's per year.  Exactly how many people own 4 Weeks resorts and 1 Points resort in the first place?  We forget that we are timeshare junkies and that the average RCI member does not come close to owning 5 timeshares.   It seems to me that this new policy has been implemented to address the issue of multiple PFD's by those who own UDI's and other systems like it that allow people to exploit the Points system to the nth degree.  If anyone out there is truly using the PFD system to convert more than 4 weeks per year to Points and they do not own a UDI, I would seriously have to ask why they are doing this and incurring multiple MF's.   I would think that it would not be cost effective to do so in the majority of cases.


BTW Bruce...glad to see that you are still in business


----------



## SteveChapin (Mar 5, 2007)

Dani said:


> It seems to me that this new policy has been implemented to address the issue of multiple PFD's by those who own UDI's and other systems like it that allow people to exploit the Points system to the nth degree.



I don't see any other way to interpret this, especially with the "per resort" proviso.  If I were like Bruce, I'd just open up another RCI points account in my wife's name, and then he can still deposit 16 weeks a year.

I have two (non-timbers) UDI, so I'm evaluating what to do.  I'm probably looking at a combination of an II membership, PFD, and independent exchange companies--I just have to think a little bit about who should get which weeks.

sc
--


----------



## wbtimesharer (Mar 5, 2007)

Dani said:


> This really does not sound like a big deal to me even if we are now limited to 4 PFD's per year.  Exactly how many people own 4 Weeks resorts and 1 Points resort in the first place?  We forget that we are timeshare junkies and that the average RCI member does not come close to owning 5 timeshares.   It seems to me that this new policy has been implemented to address the issue of multiple PFD's by those who own UDI's and other systems like it that allow people to exploit the Points system to the nth degree.  If anyone out there is truly using the PFD system to convert more than 4 weeks per year to Points and they do not own a UDI, I would seriously have to ask why they are doing this and incurring multiple MF's.   I would think that it would not be cost effective to do so in the majority of cases.
> 
> 
> BTW Bruce...glad to see that you are still in business





I still find it rather funny/irritating that anyone depositing UDI weeks are considered to be explotiing the system.  Last time I checked, money is paid to deposit a week into the program, money is paid to the resort for the MF and the housekeeping fee.  RCI also gets significant value off the deposit by either having it available for exchange or rental.  

As UDI owners are probably less than .0000001 percent of the timeshare owning community, this change could not have been done  as reaction to the the hideous violators of the PFD program.

So, what triggered this change is the question I ask.  Is the partners program costing RCI too much or is this simply greed on the part of RCI hoping it causes an increase of RCI point packages.  That or the developers have been screaming in the RCI's  ear to reduce the PFD for whatever reason.

Bill


----------



## brucecz (Mar 5, 2007)

Dani, its nice to see you :whoopie:  post. You have an voicemail  and a email  from yours truely.

Thanks  for your bringing up about 3 years ago about "inherit value" both for RCI Points and any type of ownership bought to be used mostly for  exchanging. 



I whole heartedly agree  with you. It is easy to  see when you look at our ownerships that I belive in "Inherit value".

Bruce


----------



## Dani (Mar 5, 2007)

brennumtimesharer said:


> As UDI owners are probably less than .0000001 percent of the timeshare owning community, this change could not have been done  as reaction to the the hideous violators of the PFD program.
> 
> 
> Bill



  I have to respectfully disagree.   For the reasons I stated above, I believe that the true targets of this new rule are owners of UDI's and other such memberships.   There are few other people that would be affected IMHO.    So why would RCI implement this policy?  For the same reason that they have cracked down over the years on other practices that they have considered to be exploitive.   Practices that by and large only Tuggers knew about and used.  Although Tuggers are but a small percentage of RCI's membership base, the fact is, some practices bothered RCI enough to make a change.    

BTW...when I say that the practice is exploitive, I am not making a value judgment.   Also, there has been no violation of the rules on the part of owners of UDI weeks that I know of.  It's RCI's fault if they failed to envision how the ownership of UDI's would impact upon their PFD program.

  Also, as far as developers being concerned about the PFD program, I do not see why they should care.  If anything, the PFD prgram has been directly responsible for the sale of some otherwise weak trading weeks.


----------



## geekette (Mar 6, 2007)

I agree with Dani.  How many others PFD more than 4 from one resort in a year???


----------



## PA- (Mar 6, 2007)

geekette said:


> I agree with Dani.  How many others PFD more than 4 from one resort in a year???



Many more people than you would guess.  and those that do, probably won't respond to your question, they don't like to advertise their large ownerships.  But there are MANY people who own lots of weeks, and they are not all TUGGERs (not even close).  That's why people do such strange and unusual things to get points accounts, like buying in Australia, or some crummy timeshare in Texas, or paying $3000 to convert.  You think all these people do that to deposit 1 or 2 weeks?  Maybe many do, but certainly not all.


----------



## geekette (Mar 6, 2007)

yes, but, how many of those people own more than 4 weeks at the same resort and deposit more than 4 weeks per resort into RCI?  That's the part that would be hard to fathom for any but the UDI owner who has all those weeks for one MF fee.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 6, 2007)

geekette said:


> yes, but, how many of those people own more than 4 weeks at the same resort and deposit more than 4 weeks per resort into RCI?  That's the part that would be hard to fathom for any but the UDI owner who has all those weeks for one MF fee.



That's because you are not fathoming deep enough for alternatives.  You have already determined that it must not be possible, so you don't even bother looking.

All the secrets of timesharing lie on this message board.  It's just that most people are pre-disposed to believing that certain things are just not possible.

An example of that for me was getting the eye opener that you can actually charge someone $3000 to take their timeshare off their hands.  I would have never believed that to be true until I read about Timeshare Relief.  That truly amazes me.  After that, nothing surprises me anymore.


----------



## Dani (Mar 6, 2007)

PA- said:


> Many more people than you would guess.  and those that do, probably won't respond to your question, they don't like to advertise their large ownerships.  But there are MANY people who own lots of weeks, and they are not all TUGGERs (not even close).  That's why people do such strange and unusual things to get points accounts, like buying in Australia, or some crummy timeshare in Texas, or paying $3000 to convert.  You think all these people do that to deposit 1 or 2 weeks?  Maybe many do, but certainly not all.



    Yes...there are certain ownerships that people are doing this with because like with UDI's, it is cost effective to do so.   Again, that group is likely in the minority of RCI members and not your average RCI member.  More than likely, such a person is either a TUG member or an extremely educated timeshare owner.    It seems clear to me that the limitation of no more than 4 PFD's per resort indicates that they are targeting UDI's and _other such types of memberships_ as I indicated before.     Even if the limitation were as originally thought...4 per year and not 4 per resort, I would say the same.  The majority of RCI members most certainly do not own 4 Weeks units and 1 Points ownership and therefore, this rule would have no affect on the majority of RCI members.


----------



## djyamyam (Mar 6, 2007)

Dani said:


> Yes...there are certain ownerships that people are doing this with because like with UDI's, it is cost effective to do so. Again, that group is likely in the minority of RCI members and not your average RCI member. More than likely, such a person is either a TUG member or an extremely educated timeshare owner. It seems clear to me that the limitation of no more than 4 PFD's per resort indicates that they are targeting UDI's and _other such types of memberships_ as I indicated before. Even if the limitation were as originally thought...4 per year and not 4 per resort, I would say the same. The majority of RCI members most certainly do not own 4 Weeks units and 1 Points ownership and therefore, this rule would have no affect on the majority of RCI members.


 
Don't forget that there are a lot of fractional ownerships that exist in the marketplace as well.  Part of the marketing for those also is the ability to deposit them with an exchange company.  There are a lot more fractional ownerships that exist than UDIs


----------



## geekette (Mar 6, 2007)

djyamyam said:


> Don't forget that there are a lot of fractional ownerships that exist in the marketplace as well.  Part of the marketing for those also is the ability to deposit them with an exchange company.  There are a lot more fractional ownerships that exist than UDIs



Yes, definitely more fracs than UDIs, but don't most fractional owners own to USE?  If I owned 13 consecutive weeks, I probably own them for a very good reason and I doubt that it would be to change units every week via RCI exchange.   I'm not seeing the fractional weeks at RCI.  Is anyone seeing this "bulk bank" from fractional resorts for exchange??  

That's the part I don't believe - that these owners are actually pumping inventory into RCI. Sure, a few might be the Bruce's of their resorts.


----------



## djyamyam (Mar 6, 2007)

geekette said:


> Yes, definitely more fracs than UDIs, but don't most fractional owners own to USE? If I owned 13 consecutive weeks, I probably own them for a very good reason and I doubt that it would be to change units every week via RCI exchange.


 
On a number of fractionals or quartershares, they are not sold as consecutive weeks usage. Typically, you get x weeks a year on a rotating basis. That way, you don't get all the prime weeks, even though you wish it to be otherwise. So you also get a number of offseason weeks as well.


----------



## brucecz (Mar 7, 2007)

Dani, I will respectfully disagree on who is being exploited by who.   Lets take a look at some of the things that have occurred over the last 5 yeas in regards to RCI policies.

To say these  abrupt unannounced policies changes like this one make timesharing “interesting” may be a understatement.  What ever RCI gives you they have the right to take it away. I may not :annoyed:  like the way they do it sometimes,  but I accept it is the way things have gone especially the last 3 years.

Dani, would you as a SA owner care to enlighten some of the newbies on some of the past history of SA ownerships and on how some of the people who bought SA weeks ownerships for the 10 year (or was it 15 years )of RCI weeks memberships  at a very low cost?   Many of these SA owners used those same weeks to deposit into the weeks for RCI Points program. Some still are. Were the rest of us RCI weeks owners being exploited by those SA owners and by RCI ?

Would someone please post if you know exactly what those long term SA-RCI Membership packages were priced at that time.  

 IMHO  think RCI weeks must had to in some way contribute to with what I heard were about a 50% discount off of  SA -RCI weeks memberships compared to what the rest of us  were paying in RCI weeks yearly membership fees.  Were the rest of us being exploited  by  SA owners and RCI ?   Or was it just that the SA owners were using what RCI gave them to their best advantage while the rest of us  non SA owners did not have access to the same lowered fees?  

Dani, I did not see any of the SA owners being accused of being exploitive then or now.   

Or was it just that RCI favored just that select few od SA owners. They certainly at no time gave CMV UDI owners any special advantages like they did to those SA ownerships. Were the rest of us being exploited  by  SA owners and RCI ?  

But if I would have said  that that the SA owners  practices were and are being exploitive but within the RCI Rules  I would have most likely have been  flamed.  

So IMHO some of the anti UDI CMV owner toned posts seem to be a bit of sour grapes because in comparison their timeshare ownerships cost so much  in buying costs and the on going maintenance costs per week of usage for what they get. 

But if Non CMV UDI owners think the CMV UDI owners are having something happen to them like the "Black Sunday" like the SA owners have experienced, because of this new unpublished rule, then they  truly can not see the many advantages this type of ownership offers  because of its'  Inherit  Value" compared other timeshare  traditional ownerships.   For one thing the CMV USI's are dually affiliated with  both RCI and II.

I tend agree with the main Points that my friends Boca, Bill B. and PA made in regards to the mostly unknown benefits, etc of UDI’s. 

Dani,  knows partly what I am talking about as II emailed Dani last night some germane information  about  my CMV UDI’s and  some other of our ownerships before she posted.

But let me put it this way, even after RCI Dropped  CMV UDI Timbers from gold crown down to silver causing a loss of about 25 % of the RCI Point value and then started a new $26 per week charge to deposit those weeks this dummy went from owning 6 CMV UDI  ownerships to 10 of these CMV UDI ownerships.

 In fact I am so dumb that on my last CMV "Pure Timbers" buy completed  in 2007 including  an "ownership exchange I will have a bit over $8,000 into that buy.  The other party will get one of our CMV UDI Cottages that also has 12,000 Bluegreen Points added to it leaving us with 9 CMV UDI ownerships,

Those 9 equal a 50% increase over the 6 ownerships we had.

Here is some of things that some people think are exploitive from the posts I have seen that affected people 1,000 times more than the UDI owners using the weeks for  RCI Points Program..

The present  RCI exchange fee for a international exchange is $199 on any of their weeks exchanges, while II fee for the same type of  international  exchange is only $155.   RCI’s fee is more than 28 % higher than the II fee. Are  the rest of us being exploited by  RCI  for the same type service at a 28% higher price?

Raising the cost of a  RCI guest certificate from about $25 to $59(?) in about 6 years or less. That is about a 236 % increase or about 40 % a year.  Are the rest of us being exploited by  RCI  with those type of  price increases ?

Now seeing even a slow poke typer  like me could type that change in for a guest certificate  in one minute. or less.   Lets say the person who types that that guest certificate makes $20 per hour if you include their benefits. $20 divided by 60 minutes equal a cost per minute of 33 cents to type that out.

Now $59. minus 33 cents equals a profit of $58.67 per one minute of time spent typing out a guest certificate.  A $58.57 per minute profit times 60 minutes equals  a profit of $3,514.20 per hour on typing up guest certificates for the owners who supply the bulk of the inventory. Talk about being exploitive. 

The owners who paid for the ownership, those owners who pay the maintenance costs then are expected to pay  about $59. to let some family or friends to use their exchange. 

 RCI's  buying investment and maintenance fees for that exchange week is $0.
RCI's income for that week over $220. Are the rest of us being exploited by  RCI ?

But as always Dani, I look forward to your finely crafted  postings even through there are a very small percentage that I might not agree with. But that’s ok.

 I wish I had 1/10 of your posting skills, but alas I do not so have those skills but I will have hopefully brought up some things that IMHO appear to be overlooked in regards to how and how the rest of us may been exploited  before RCI weeks for RCI Points came along.

Bruce


----------



## wbtimesharer (Mar 7, 2007)

geekette said:


> yes, but, how many of those people own more than 4 weeks at the same resort and deposit more than 4 weeks per resort into RCI?  That's the part that would be hard to fathom for any but the UDI owner who has all those weeks for one MF fee.



Geekette,

I believe that there a lot of people who own many units at a specific resorts.  There is an economy of scale of owning multiple weeks at a specific resort or within a specific resort network such as BlueGreen.  Of course, you would know the benefits of multiple BlueGreen ownerships better than I, but there are there.  One of the biggests benefits in multiple ownerships come from this individuals who like to earn income from rentals.  

Your total cost of advertising is greatly decreased when you have multiple weeks as most rental sites you can listing multiple weeks simply  by stating "call for availability" in a single ad.  Owning a week at many resorts requires an ad for each resort.  

Now as for using a single week for PFD requires a calculation of what you pay for MF for that week, the $26 PFD, and what you plan to do with it.  I know the rally cry here is that RCI PFD is the Devil's creation as it allows a person to get a prime week by depositing two crap weeks.  My comeback on that has always been that well that individual just coughed up 2 MF's to get it so it was in fact probably an even trade.  I think you would have to concentrate on owning at resorts with fairly low MF's to make depositing more than 4 weeks a year cost beneficial.  However, those types of resorts do exist.

My whole take on this change by RCI is that either RCI is trying to herd us sheep into another pen or that RCI has been getting sheared by PFD and Partners for Points program.  I truly believe that it is hoping to get the "more than 4" crowd to buying into more points units with the end destination being all RCI resorts are points resorts.  That would in effect end the PFD program.

Bill


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Mar 7, 2007)

RCI can end the PFD program whenever they wish.  That is my problem with RCI; just when you get to know the game well enough to play it like a pro, they change the rules and you have to figure a new way to get what you want from their system.

There are no guarantees with RCI.


----------



## Dani (Mar 7, 2007)

Oh no Bruce...I can't believe that you disagree with me!!! LOL    Actually, I'm not sure where it is that we disagree.   

  I'm thinking that some have taken exception to my using the term "exploitive" with respect to UDI's and other types of ownerships.   As I said before, I truly use the word with no judgment attached.    Much of what I have learned and passed on to others over the years was specifically designed to exploit the system.     

I can think of any number of ways that timeshare owners have exploited the system over the years and still continue to do so.  As you have said or hinted at Bruce, the ownership of SA weeks is IMHO one of the greatest ways that the system has been exploited.      I came to TUG in 1998 just as the SA ownership craze was on fire.  Those who pre-date me can give you a better history.  What I remember is that it was not RCI whom drove the SA craze, but the sellers of SA weeks and SA developers.  If you doubt the power of TUG, look no further than the way the SA sellers marketed these weeks. They gave free or discounted weeks to certain TUG members who then in turn spoke about the types of trades that SA weeks were  able to obtain for a fraction of the price that we were used to on the message boards here on TUG.  Pretty soon, it seemed as if everyone was buying SA weeks.   Look at where it is today.

  What you should know however is that even as far back as 1998, RCI realized what was going on and changed the game.  "Black Sunday" is not new.  We had a Black Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc years ago!!!   By the time I got my hands on my Dik week in 1998, the trade power had already been dramatically reduced.   While people were able to purchase discounted memberships for very low prices through SA once upon a time, much of that has been erased.   The point is, and the point that I was trying to make is that RCI and even II will shut down a practice if they feel that the practice unfairly exploits their system.  If I were in their position, I would do the same if I felt that it was cost effective.  If it were not, I might leave things as they were.  As some have pointed out, RCI has made money that they probably otherwise would not have due to certain practices.

Also, never underestimate the power of those who complain when they feel that someone is exploiting the system.  Remember the Marriott "greenie" weeks?  Remember the days when we could see Embassy resort weeks more than 6 months out? Remember when we could purchase Marriott Getaway weeks on II for less than the MF's?  These things all went away due to the complaints of others.  

BTW...I think that you guys are right, fractional ownerships are also very likely one of the targets of this new policy.

Edited to respond to a portion of Bruce's post that I missed.  With respect to RCI exploiting their members....of course they do.   Much like their membership, they will do as much as they are allowed to get away with.    II does it too.   With RCI you can get an refund on at least some portion of a cancelled exchange depending upon the timing.  Not so with II.  RCI also gives you the full use time period of your week when you either deposit late or cancel an exchange.  II does not.  RCI also has cheaper extra vacation and last call weeks in many cases.   I can sit here and do a comparison of the ways that II exploits it's membership in worse ways than RCI and vice-versa.   That however is not the point IMHO.    They are both businesses and they will do what we allow them to do.  I remember being shocked to see RCI's $199 exchange fee.  I was not happy, yet I stay with RCI.  Why?  Because I am  obviously still getting value out of my membership.   That is why most people remain.   Yes, we must learn to exploit the system as best we can in order to make our membership valuable.  When people cease to see the value in their membership with any organization, they simply leave if able to do so.    I always know when it's time to move on.  When my MF's plus exchange and other fees start to cost me more than the weeks that I am getting in exchange, then  it's time to move on or to look for other ways to use my weeks.


----------



## Dottie (Mar 7, 2007)

Scuse my ignorance.  What is a UDI?


----------



## BillR (Mar 8, 2007)

PA- said:


> I was just told today that RCI has implemented a new limitation on PFD.  Supposedly, you are limited to 4 deposits per year.  If that's true, there are a number of people here who will be impacted BIG time (especially Bruce cz).  Anyone know if this is the case?



*THE RULE IS SIMPLE.  4 PFD PER RESORT - NOT PER MEMBER.  IF YOU HAVE 4 INTERVALS IN TWO DIFFERENT TIMESHARES AND WISH TO PFD THEM, GREAT - YOU CAN GET POINTS FROM 8 DEPOSITS.*

*YES - THIS PROBABLY SHOULD BE CALLED THE BRUCECZ RULE.*


----------



## RonaldCol (Mar 10, 2007)

*Possible Workaround ...*

Problems and enigma and conundrum solving ... that is one of my specialties. Already, I have a possible workaround the RCI limitation on Points for Deposit. It would behoove all of us if I were to bring this workaround for an open, public discussion. What we need to see now is a few months of RCI Points Accounts implementation of this limitation. Once a track record is established by other timeshare owners when depositing weeks for points, and the procedure is more less in place, then I will bring up my possible workaround.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 10, 2007)

_Please remember to play nice._


----------



## BillR (Mar 12, 2007)

RonaldCol said:


> Problems and enigma and conundrum solving ... that is one of my specialties. Already, I have a possible workaround the RCI limitation on Points for Deposit. It would behoove all of us if I were to bring this workaround for an open, public discussion. What we need to see now is a few months of RCI Points Accounts implementation of this limitation. Once a track record is established by other timeshare owners when depositing weeks for points, and the procedure is more less in place, then I will bring up my possible workaround.



Did this post make any sense before the editing . . . or did the editing contribute to the fact that this makes no sense.  DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT WHAT THE "CONTENT" OF THIS POST MEANS?


----------



## wbtimesharer (Mar 13, 2007)

BillR said:


> Did this post make any sense before the editing . . . or did the editing contribute to the fact that this makes no sense.  DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT WHAT THE "CONTENT" OF THIS POST MEANS?




What I think he is alluding to is that he has a workaround to RCI's new policy that is too sensitive and radical to share at this time .  His workaround of course is one that  no one here is clever enough to already have considered.   My personal opinion is that there are of course a number of workarounds ranging from costing a little to potentially a lot over what RCI allowed previously.    

After reading posts in this group over the last couple of years, I assume there are a number of posters here who have already found a workaround that will have 0 incremental costs from prior to the new rules.

Time will tell.

Bill


----------



## RonaldCol (Mar 16, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> _Please remember to play nice._



LOL was too short and not accepted by the software, so I 

enter Laughing Out Loud


----------



## RonaldCol (Mar 16, 2007)

brennumtimesharer said:


> What I think he is alluding to is that he has a workaround to RCI's new policy that is too sensitive and radical to share at this time .  His workaround of course is one that  no one here is clever enough to already have considered.   My personal opinion is that there are of course a number of workarounds ranging from costing a little to potentially a lot over what RCI allowed previously.
> 
> After reading posts in this group over the last couple of years, I assume there are a number of posters here who have already found a workaround that will have 0 incremental costs from prior to the new rules.
> 
> ...




You are correct in your assumptions. The unfortunate situation is not only is this forum used by timeshare owners, but also by timeshare insiders such as Wyndham, Bluegreen, Hilton, RCI, etc. The insiders have the abilities to change the conditions under which we timeshare owners operate. Over the years the insiders have changed the conditions to our detriment. This latest condition for PFD's is most likely (and this is conjecture) partially due to information obtained from TUG users. 

I no longer have any real interest in providing information to insiders to the detriment of timeshare owners. 

The enemy is not outside, but within.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 16, 2007)

There are several workarounds for this points for deposit rule.

First, you can buy multiple cheap RCI Points accounts and then deposit 4 weeks per resort per account.

Also, what you can do is share the ownership of a UDI amongst multiple owners.  Just become joint owners with several people each of whom are on the deed.  Then, deposit the weeks generated from one UDI across multiple owners RCI Points accounts.


----------



## ouaifer (Mar 16, 2007)

RonaldCol said:


> LOL was too short and not accepted by the software, so I
> 
> enter Laughing Out Loud



Actually, that was _*My Quote*_ as the Moderator!
And, I shall reiterate it, _*Play Nice!*_


----------



## wbtimesharer (Mar 17, 2007)

RonaldCol said:


> You are correct in your assumptions. The unfortunate situation is not only is this forum used by timeshare owners, but also by timeshare insiders such as Wyndham, Bluegreen, Hilton, RCI, etc. The insiders have the abilities to change the conditions under which we timeshare owners operate. Over the years the insiders have changed the conditions to our detriment. This latest condition for PFD's is most likely (and this is conjecture) partially due to information obtained from TUG users.
> 
> I no longer have any real interest in providing information to insiders to the detriment of timeshare owners.
> 
> The enemy is not outside, but within.



Ronald,

Love to hear your thoughts to see if I am truly missing something.  Send me a message some time and we will keep those hired assassins employed by RCI out of the loop.  

Thanks

Bill


----------



## wbtimesharer (Mar 17, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> There are several workarounds for this points for deposit rule.
> 
> First, you can buy multiple cheap RCI Points accounts and then deposit 4 weeks per resort per account.
> 
> Also, what you can do is share the ownership of a UDI amongst multiple owners.  Just become joint owners with several people each of whom are on the deed.  Then, deposit the weeks generated from one UDI across multiple owners RCI Points accounts.



Boca,  

I agree on the first part, but unfortunately that forces you into paying RCI more moolah to play the same amount of points.  I am hoping that someone has unearthed a loophole similar to the ones within the BlueGreen system that is a true workaround.

The second is a whole lot trickier and I am not sure how you would do it.  I can see that getting real ugly as far who gets what weeks to deposit.  UDI's are flexible, but not magical and there is a limit to the number of weeks you can have booked.  Besides, true value only comes when you are booking far enough out to get at least 75% of the value.

It will be interesting to see if Ronald has found the Holy Grail of workarounds.

Bill


----------



## brucecz (Mar 25, 2007)

Boca, in regards to those 8  key items we discussed  in early February on ways to adjust sucessfully  to the new RCI Points rules and lower our cost per RCI Point even lower than we first calculated last month. 

This past month I was able to :whoopie: verify with 2 differant very good sourses that there would be no problems with the 3 items that we were not sure on how the new rule could be skirted. The two items in particular that I thought  of might be viable,  are indeed very viable and are 100% within the RCI rules. 

That new rule will now is not going to be a real problem and we both  definatelly agree that we only share this information only with people our group completely trusts 100% if we all agree 100% on who to share with and not to :ignore: share with. 


I have taken steps to sucessfully complete those 3 items in the next month what was needed  to be done on those 3 steps. We will be all set on  3 of those items or before this May 1. 

I think your item number 2 was one of your excellant timeshare ideas as was items 5 and 8  by our other friends involved in this project.

The 5 other non RCI rules items  on our agenda are now completed and are we already  reaping the benifits from those items. Like you say cash is king.

I think we both will benifiet even more than before with the adjustments  that we have now made with our over all timesharing agenda's even though yours and my agenda goals are a bit differant.

I hope others on this board can find ways behind the sences to cope successfully as we have. Good luck to you all.

Bruce  



BocaBum99 said:


> There are several workarounds for this points for deposit rule.
> 
> First, you can buy multiple cheap RCI Points accounts and then deposit 4 weeks per resort per account.
> 
> Also, what you can do is share the ownership of a UDI amongst multiple owners.  Just become joint owners with several people each of whom are on the deed.  Then, deposit the weeks generated from one UDI across multiple owners RCI Points accounts.


----------

