# TPU "inflation"... is it RCI or resort thinking boosting required TPUs?



## Carol C (Dec 4, 2011)

First it was Manhattan Club's required TPUs that increased, then DVC. Interestingly these are both Gold Crown resorts, and both are still bulk-spacebanking We TUGgers were getting used to picking up exchanges for low cost during bulkspacebankings. I'm wondering if it is RCI behind this strategy...or is it the high-end resort complaining to RCI about low valuation by RCI vis a vis TPU exchange cost?

Btw...I've also noticed that two of my other fave resorts have pretty much doubled in TPU cost, and both are Gold Crown: Gamboa Rainforest Resort costs 40+ TPUs to get into a 2br (even in the 45 day advance window), and Marriott's Monarch has been boosted to cost 35 TPUs next December during low season...even though it cost 8 TPUs for same time period in 2011.

What gives?


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 4, 2011)

Any time you have a published final number but a hidden process for setting that number it encouraging developers politicking the exchange company for higher numbers.  It is what is wrong with Points Light.  There are only two sceanarios for honest trading power numbers, publishing neither final number nor process, or publishing both.  I suspect the first genie will not go back in the bottle at this point, so the only real option for customers is full transparency, where the formula is published and the underlying numbers are at least given to resorts.  This full transparency already exists with RCI award status, and it should be applied to trading power numbers as well.

I have seen enough corruption in Points Light numbers, that I have no interest in using that system.  Sure, one might buy a week at a resort that is overpointed today with the intent to trade into underpointed resorts, but the whole situation is likely to change quickly and then you are stuck.  It is best just to avoid the system.


----------



## Margariet (Dec 4, 2011)

I still think it is a matter of supply and demand. The market makes the price. I still see huge decline in TUP's as well. Last minutes are still very low in TPU's, even for Manhattan. Once it was even cheaper for me to cancel a week and book it again since the week suddenly needed such a small amount of TPU's. And I think that RCI is also still developing the whole system.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 5, 2011)

When you compare RCI Points Lite numbers in areas with much more demand than supply like southern England outside Cornwall or summer French Riviera or a host of others on one hand and those awash in excess inventory like Orlando, or the other, then one thing that is clearly thrown out the window by RCI on its numbers racket is supply and demand.

It is time for FULL transparency, not the pathetic illusion of transparency that exists currently.


----------



## Margariet (Dec 5, 2011)

Supply and demand with RCI. RCI members want to go to NY, want to go to Disney and are willing to pay a higher amount of TPU's. When they don't want to pay these TPU's the amount will come down. The amount of TPU's is the amount we are still wlling to pay. That's the way of the market.


----------



## bellesgirl (Dec 5, 2011)

Margariet said:


> Supply and demand with RCI. RCI members want to go to NY, want to go to Disney and are willing to pay a higher amount of TPU's. When they don't want to pay these TPU's the amount will come down. The amount of TPU's is the amount we are still wlling to pay. That's the way of the market.


We own in Orlando - Xmas and NY week.  As much inventory as there is in Orlando, there is nothing available for those weeks for 2011.  RCI's objective is to make an exchange, not to trade in TPUs.  Apparently they can get rid of every one of those weeks, so they give a lot of TPUs to the owners.  

I agree with Carolinian, I would pay big TPU to get London, but there is just not that much out there, period.  I would guess RCI's main concern is volume.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 5, 2011)

Margariet said:


> Supply and demand with RCI. RCI members want to go to NY, want to go to Disney and are willing to pay a higher amount of TPU's. When they don't want to pay these TPU's the amount will come down. The amount of TPU's is the amount we are still wlling to pay. That's the way of the market.



In a true market, your statement would be accurate, but not when a ''market'' is distorted by other factors.  In the case of RCI exchanges, it is distorted by RCI pandering to certain developers, by RCI's massive rental activities of spacebank deposits, and probably other factors.

As to Orlando, yes there is a big demand to go to Disney, but there is also an even MORE massive supply.  Orlando is very much overbuilt, and it is the supply part of the equation that depresses the market there as opposed to demnd.  It is very much like the Canary Islands, which I just returned from - great place to go, great place to trade into, lots of demand, but overbuilt and thus awash in excess supply.

NY should not exceed London in points.  Both are high demand / low supply, but London is a far scarcer commodity in the timeshare world.  NY sightings appear fairly regularly but London sightings almost never.  Anything availible in London always gets snapped up by ongoing searches.  Just one more excample of RCI's thumb on the scales in its corrupt ''market''.


----------



## Ron98GT (Dec 5, 2011)

Carolinian said:


> In a true market, your statement would be accurate, but not when a ''market'' is distorted by other factors.  In the case of RCI exchanges, it is distorted by RCI pandering to certain developers, by RCI's massive rental activities of spacebank deposits, and probably other factors.
> 
> As to Orlando, yes there is a big demand to go to Disney, but there is also an even MORE massive supply.  Orlando is very much overbuilt, and it is the supply part of the equation that depresses the market there as opposed to supply.  It is very much like the Canary Islands, which I just returned from - great place to go, great place to trade into, lots of demand, but overbuilt and thus awash in excess supply.
> 
> NY should not exceed London in points.  Both are high demand / low supply, but London is a far scarcer commodity in the timeshare world.  NY sightings appear fairly regularly but London sightings almost never.  Anything availible in London always gets snapped up by ongoing searches.  Just one more excample of RCI's thumb on the scales in its corrupt ''market''.



Oops


----------



## Mel (Dec 5, 2011)

Carolinian said:


> NY should not exceed London in points.  Both are high demand / low supply, but London is a far scarcer commodity in the timeshare world.  NY sightings appear fairly regularly but London sightings almost never.  Anything availible in London always gets snapped up by ongoing searches.  Just one more excample of RCI's thumb on the scales in its corrupt ''market''.


I don't agree with you one this.  While one might think that the resort that never shows up online should be valued higher, that is simply a function of the supply side of the equation, and the willingness of people to place ongoing searches to obtain a stay in London.  Remember also that many who want to stay in London are willing to stay outside London as well, while those wanting to exchange into New York may or may not be willing to stay outside the city.

It's not just about setting a high bar, but obtaining balance.  If I am setting the price on a commodity, I will set that price based on my total profit, not just on the profit of an individual item.  If my base cost is $30, and I sell 100 items at $40, and only 40 at a selling price of $50, then the higher profit per item results in a lower overall profit.

Likewise, RCI has to consider what members are willing to pay, to exchange into London or New York.  While there may be great demand for London, it is possible that not enough people would be willing to pay more for that exchange.  They have to balance the equation such that inventory in equals inventory out.  If we believe that it is in RCI's best interest to rent those weeks rather than make them available as exchanges, then why don't they set the cost for London higher?  Perhaps because for whatever reason, it is in their best interest to set the price where it is, and provide those weeks as exchanges.

But then, the counter-argument holds.  Is RCI setting the cost of NYC that high to discourage exchanges, so they can push that inventory into rentals?  Perhaps, but again, why would there still be so much available as exchanges?


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 5, 2011)

Ron98GT said:


> Oops



Thanks.  I fixed it.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Dec 5, 2011)

It's all about demand.  DVC is in high demand, the weeks disappear very quickly, and DVC is going for very high TPU's as a result.  There are lots of choices for Orlando, and I will choose other resorts from this point forward.  

I just wish Hilton didn't have a 1-in-4 rule, which is a killer for us.  I prefer Hilton and the Marriott resorts over anything DVC for our trips without grandkids.  We will be happy staying at Vistana and several other resorts nearby, which I have seen as cheaply as 5 TPU's on sale during slow season.  You cannot beat it.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 5, 2011)

Not surprising, Mel, that you defend RCI in anything it does.

New York sightings have been fairly common in the old system as well as the new.  London sightings have been virtually non-existant in both.  Indeed, Paris is more common than London, but less common than New York.

But there is more than just what we can glean from what appears online.  There is also RCI policy in its VIP program.  In VIP, resort managers and HOA members can obtain anything RCI has in inventory (also searches) and only has to give back a week of similar size and season.  Trading power did not apply. (I don't know if the rules changes when Points Lite came in or not). There was only one place in the world where the VIP program could not trade into, and that was London.  One of the RCI staff who worked VIP explained to me when I asked why that London had so much demand and so little inventory that if they allowed VIP exchanges into there, nobody else would ever get an exchange.

As to your remark about resorts outside London, those close enough to commute in have been also very difficult to exchange into, and harder to find than NYC.  Two of those resorts have disappeared from the RCI directory in the last year completely.  Even those resorts where you might do an hour and and half commute each way are very hard to trade into.  Yet that whole region of England is grossly underpointed in Points Lite, although many of the same resorts fare okay in regular RCI Points.

I can see some of the prime weeks in NYC hitting 60 points lite, but when the deep offseason weeks are in that range, and substantially more than an owner of a similar sized week at Allen House would get during a desirable time, then it is beyond absurd.

Even with an exchange company that has an additional resort in London, SFX, it is harder to trade into London than into NYC.  (SFX is the chief exchange company for Sloan Garden Court in central London, after that resort dumped RCI as its exchange company)




Mel said:


> I don't agree with you one this.  While one might think that the resort that never shows up online should be valued higher, that is simply a function of the supply side of the equation, and the willingness of people to place ongoing searches to obtain a stay in London.  Remember also that many who want to stay in London are willing to stay outside London as well, while those wanting to exchange into New York may or may not be willing to stay outside the city.
> 
> It's not just about setting a high bar, but obtaining balance.  If I am setting the price on a commodity, I will set that price based on my total profit, not just on the profit of an individual item.  If my base cost is $30, and I sell 100 items at $40, and only 40 at a selling price of $50, then the higher profit per item results in a lower overall profit.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 5, 2011)

Still, if you compare DVC to much rarer stuff, its points lite are often higher than the rarer weeks, and that should not be so if supply and demand is the basis of the numbers.  DVC shows up quite often in sightings.

I would agree with you from what I read on these boards, that DVC has a significantly higher demand than anything else in Orlando.

Another thing with DVC is that the numbers went up very abruptly.  If some event cooincided with an abrupt change like that, which it did not in that case, that could explain it within the bounds of supply and demand.  Otherwise, it is symptomatic of an arbitrary change by RCI, or in laymen's terms, RCI putting its thumb on the scales.  Such arbitrary changes in values cry out for a fully transparent system.





rickandcindy23 said:


> It's all about demand.  DVC is in high demand, the weeks disappear very quickly, and DVC is going for very high TPU's as a result.  There are lots of choices for Orlando, and I will choose other resorts from this point forward.
> 
> I just wish Hilton didn't have a 1-in-4 rule, which is a killer for us.  I prefer Hilton and the Marriott resorts over anything DVC for our trips without grandkids.  We will be happy staying at Vistana and several other resorts nearby, which I have seen as cheaply as 5 TPU's on sale during slow season.  You cannot beat it.


----------



## chriskre (Dec 6, 2011)

rickandcindy23 said:


> .
> 
> I just wish Hilton didn't have a 1-in-4 rule, which is a killer for us.  I prefer Hilton and the Marriott resorts over anything DVC for our trips without grandkids.  .



There always seems to be open season availability in HGVC thru the club someplace in Orlando.  

Maybe you should add a biennial ownership to your portfolio so you can get those units too.   That's one of the main reasons I bought into HGVC cause big units in RCI at the last minute in peak season are luck of the draw.  My odds are better with HGVC.  I know it's working well for me.


----------



## Mel (Dec 9, 2011)

I wasn't defending RCI.  I was stating that there may be something esle at work here.  What are the demographics of members exchanging into NYC vs London?  That's where the difference is.

A larger percentage of RCI's membership is based in the eastern United States than in England.  A larger percentage of members are within driving distance of NYC than London, and the cost to get there is less - sure, Paris is within driving distance of London, if you take the Channel tunnel or a ferry, but at what cost?  

That means there is likely more activity in NYC closer to the check-in dates, which translates to more demand.   Obviously NYC has more supply than London, so VIP weeks are not allowed there.  But that's still only the supply part of the equation.  If you look at your example of SFX having more supply in London, why then do they charge the same upgrade fee for London as they do for NYC?  Why do they list NYC as having peak demand all year, and London has both peak and high demand?

RCI sets their point levels they way they want - nobody is forced to use RCI.  Perhaps rather than putting their thumb on the scale, some of those resorts that experienced "inflation" were being discounted before - like DVC.  We all know everyone was suprised at how low the initial DVC values were.  Perhaps RCI miscalculated, and decided they needed to boost them, particularly if they were giving DVC exchanges of significant value to get that inventory.

In no other business do I see companies explaining to the consumer how they set their prices.  They are what they are, and we can choose to shop there or not.  Yes, they have our deposits, but that's not far different from purchasing a gift certificate for later use.  If their prices go up, I have to choose what I will purchase more wisely.  The same applies to RCI and any other exchange company.




Carolinian said:


> Not surprising, Mel, that you defend RCI in anything it does.
> 
> New York sightings have been fairly common in the old system as well as the new.  London sightings have been virtually non-existant in both.  Indeed, Paris is more common than London, but less common than New York.
> 
> ...


----------



## tombo (Dec 9, 2011)

Mel said:


> I wasn't defending RCI.
> 
> In no other business do I see companies explaining to the consumer how they set their prices.  They are what they are, and we can choose to shop there or not.  Yes, they have our deposits, but that's not far different from purchasing a gift certificate for later use.  If their prices go up, I have to choose what I will purchase more wisely.  The same applies to RCI and any other exchange company.



If you say anything positive about RCI Carol gets mad and accuses you of defending RCI. He has not said anything positive about RCI in years and always shows London as the hardest trade in the world. I have never looked for a London week and probably never will. I DO have a Manahattan Club exchange reserved for my anniversary 2012 and yes I paid those high TPU's to get it, so the cost was worth it to me. I Checked travelocity, Kayak, Priceline, etc, etc, etc for rooms before exchanging and I am still doing so.  I have vacation protection and if I find a better deal I can cancel and get all 60 of my TPU's and my exchange fees back. As of right now the exchange beats anything I have found on line making this a very good exchange for me, even at 60 TPU's.

Finally Mel great point about transparency. No company has to explain or justify the prices they charge for a product or service. Carolinian call Dell and ask them why they charge x $'s for the XYZ model laptop. Call Ford and ask why the trucks are so much higher thasn passenger cars. Call starbucks and ask why they charge so much for coffee. Please feel free to call the corporate offices of these and other companies asking for transparency and for them to justify why they charge what they do for their products. I look forward to hearing about your conversations and the tranparency you are enlightened with.


----------



## 6scoops (Dec 9, 2011)

*I wish they would not raise tpu but seriously....*

It does stink that they are raising the TPU on good resorts, I would rather they didn't catch on that those units were going as fast as they are being released.  

So far, I don't know what is not to love about RCI, in my first year with them with my first deposit, I was able to book 2 weeks at DVC during the most prime time there is for Disney World, Christmas and New years, my kids are off of school.  We will have 2 full weeks in the world.  I got those two weeks for a fraction of what owning at DVC or Renting from a owner or reserving directly through Disney would cost!   There is no cheaper way on this planet to get those 2 weeks unless you won a grand prize in a sweeps!   I feel like I did by the way.  On top of that, and I swear I'm not bragging, I also booked last minute over this past Columbus Day weekend  The Manhattan Club for 18 TPU!!  This is all with my first year deposit, and a little bonus deposit, I was not expecting.    Next year now that they raised the TPU, I would not be able to do this but, I feel like I got away with murder my first year, so I was kinda expecting the jig to be up soon.  Oh, and even at 60 tpu it is still cheaper that renting, going direct or owning!  

Plus I rented my DVC points for double my maintenance fees, because I wont be needing to use them this year!


----------



## bnoble (Dec 9, 2011)

> If you say anything positive about RCI Carol gets mad and accuses you of defending RCI.


Indeed.  He clearly subscribes to the philosophy that you either hate RCI with every fiber of your being, or you are evil incarnate.  No middle ground.  The ad hominem attack of "RCI Defender" is just a bonus that comes along with the game.


----------



## chriskre (Dec 9, 2011)

6scoops said:


> Plus I rented my DVC points for double my maintenance fees, because I wont be needing to use them this year!



Woo Hoo!!!!  You go Girl!!!   

I too got a nice DVC exchange for only 19 TPU's in a 2 bedroom.  
Vero here I come.   
And this would have cost me 2 years MF's in DVC and I still couldn't get it.  :annoyed:


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Dec 9, 2011)

RCI has always had lots of inventory on Kauai.  Between Lawai Beach, Point at Poipu, the PAHIO's (now Wyndhams), and Pono Kai, the values in RCI are very low, making the exchanges so much cheaper than owning.  I just got a Wyndham Shearwater for 21 points, February 23rd with an ongoing search. 

Maui was always very high TPU's for Kahana Falls, Ka'anapali beach and Maui Lea at Maui Hill.  That was most of the inventory through RCI.  Now RCI has the Consolidated resorts in large numbers, all of which are on Maui.  So now a summer week on Maui in a 2 bedroom is about the same as it is on Kauai.  

So Maui and Kauai are now in large numbers in RCI, and RCI has devalued them.  Supply and demand.  

Very sad for anyone who owns on those islands and wants to deposit with RCI, because you can never get a DVC week with your 30 points lite (at $1,200 in MF's).  

I just hope Consolidated didn't stick it to the owners by choosing an exclusive relationship with RCI.  II needs to stay an option.  If I cannot get DVC with my Maui deposit, at least I can get a Marriott and an XYZ second week with my Maui 2 bedrooms.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 10, 2011)

Mel, it should be a no-brainer that when inventory appears online at RCI, supply exceeds demand.  When it is always snartched by an ongoing search and does not appear online, demand exceeds supply.  It is really as simple as that.  All sorts of fancy theories as to why there ought to be more or less demand for something don't matter.  It is the cold hard facts that do.

As to London, I posted a thread sometime back about how even with the London Olympics has RCI given appropriate points lite to resorts in and around London.

The smart thing for a London, or indeed UK, resort to do is what Sloan Garden Court resort in London did, and that is kick RCI out the door and start using a different exchange company as your main exchange provider.  In their case it was SFX.  Or what the Seasons chain did and switch to II.




Mel said:


> I wasn't defending RCI.  I was stating that there may be something esle at work here.  What are the demographics of members exchanging into NYC vs London?  That's where the difference is.
> 
> A larger percentage of RCI's membership is based in the eastern United States than in England.  A larger percentage of members are within driving distance of NYC than London, and the cost to get there is less - sure, Paris is within driving distance of London, if you take the Channel tunnel or a ferry, but at what cost?
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 10, 2011)

On your usual high horse, I see, Tomboy!  Even posting links to threads I have started on RCI that were non-negative do not seem to register with you.

We have several categories here of the RCI defenders.  Some are knee jerk cheerleaders who even defend the undefendable like RCI's rentals of spacebank deposits to the general public.  Others perceive some personal benefit to themselves as to some RCI policy that might be negative to others.  Points Lite is an example of that.  A survey on another site showed that the numbers of those who perceived that they came out ahead was roughly equal to those who percieved they came out behind.  That makes perfect sense in a real world, and it also makes perfect sense that those who think they came out ahead will praise the system.  Only the arrogant, however, should beleive that those who came out behind should also praise the system.  And then there are those of us who through involvement in the industry, in my case as an ex-HOA president, tend to look at a bigger picture than how it impacts us personally, although sometimes things we are aware of personally make good examples. 




tombo said:


> If you say anything positive about RCI Carol gets mad and accuses you of defending RCI. He has not said anything positive about RCI in years and always shows London as the hardest trade in the world. I have never looked for a London week and probably never will. I DO have a Manahattan Club exchange reserved for my anniversary 2012 and yes I paid those high TPU's to get it, so the cost was worth it to me. I Checked travelocity, Kayak, Priceline, etc, etc, etc for rooms before exchanging and I am still doing so.  I have vacation protection and if I find a better deal I can cancel and get all 60 of my TPU's and my exchange fees back. As of right now the exchange beats anything I have found on line making this a very good exchange for me, even at 60 TPU's.
> 
> Finally Mel great point about transparency. No company has to explain or justify the prices they charge for a product or service. Carolinian call Dell and ask them why they charge x $'s for the XYZ model laptop. Call Ford and ask why the trucks are so much higher thasn passenger cars. Call starbucks and ask why they charge so much for coffee. Please feel free to call the corporate offices of these and other companies asking for transparency and for them to justify why they charge what they do for their products. I look forward to hearing about your conversations and the tranparency you are enlightened with.


----------



## janej (Dec 10, 2011)

I just noticed something really strange too.   I recently sold my timeshare at Waterside by Spinnaker in Hilton Head.   We don't go every year and RCI only gave about 30 TPU for summer weeks for close to $700 MF.   

Today, I noticed the TPU required to trade in jumped.   Here are a few examples of the higher TPUs
2 Bedrooms	 6 (6)	 Full	 Sat 30-Jun-2012	 Sat 07-Jul-2012	 41
3 Bedrooms	 8 (8)	 Full	 Sat 08-Sep-2012	 Sat 15-Sep-2012	 42
2 Bedrooms	 6 (6)	 Full	 Sat 26-May-2012	 Sat 02-Jun-2012	 41
3 Bedrooms	 8 (8)	 Full	 Sat 21-Apr-2012	 Sat 28-Apr-2012	 41

I went and used the deposit calculator to see if there is any increase in TPU given to the owners.   Here is what I found for the four weeks listed here
35, 22, 23, 26 TPU.  The TPU values I used here are the full values, the actually TPU value the owners will receive is lower since all four weeks passed the 9 months checkin mark.   I can understand RCI changes the TPU values based on supply and demand.   They could ask for a higher value than they gave after receiving a deposit.   But how do you explain continue to offer owners half of the value that they currently ask for?

By the way, this discrepancy is new to Waterside.   I monitored the TPU values before I sold.   Even though there were rarely any summer weeks available for exchange, the values were in line with what deposit calculator shows when a week popped up occasionally.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Dec 10, 2011)

Jane, that is messed up for sure.  I have always thought Hilton Head was too low in value, especially when compared to Myrtle Beach.


----------



## tombo (Dec 10, 2011)

RCI has been adjusting TPU's based on demand very agressivelly recently. I put a Mardis Gras New Orleans studio on hold for 22 tpu's. I could not believe I had found a Mardis Gras week and was thrilled that it was only 22 TPU's. My wife could could not get off of work so I let it go. The next day she found out she could get off and I went back to find the same unit had risen to 29 tpu's in 24 hours. None of the January, February, or March non Mardis Gras weeks had increased, only the dates during Mardis Gras. It is like RCI said Oh I see why those are disappearing so fast, it is Mardis Geas. Duhh! 

A couple of months ago before RCI adjusted the high demand weeks I booked a New Years Eve/Sugar Bowl week in a NOLA studiofor 13 TPU's. I know that was wayy too cheap for the demand for that week in NOLA, but I was happy to snag it.. Looking at the deposit calculator that week had a max tpu of 15 this year. Next year the deposit calculator shows that exact week is worth 20 TPU's for deposit.

Labor Day week 2011 I booked a Gold Crown Oceanfront 2 bed Wyndham for 18 TPU's. That was cheap and of course I loved it. A one bed room was available at the same resort the other day for August week for 27 TPU's.

They have raised both what they charge for prime high demand weeks, and they have raised how much they are giving you for depositing your prime weeks. If you haven't used the deposit calculator latelly to see what your prime weeks are worth, try it because it is probably worth more now than it used to be worth. 

One of my summer units was valued on thr RCI calculator about 2 months ago for 19 TPU's. It is now worth 28 tpu's if I deposit it. Another of my weeks went from 22 TPU's about 2 months ago to 30 TPU's now. Another week went from 18 to 26. Another fixed week one bed unit Prime Week at a Hard to get resort was only 34 when I deposited it for 2012, it is now worth 40 tpu's if I deposit it for 2013. These were all prime summer weeks I always felt I was being shortchanged on. I feel much better depositing them now than I did a few months ago.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 10, 2011)

When RCI is shortchanging depositing members in this way, it is a likely sign that this is an area where they are renting out exchange deposits to the general public.  It would appear that the number of points lite given for deposits is what RCI would claim as the ''value'' to balance the system in any new class action, so it benefits them to depress the areas where they are renting.  Similarly the inventory they feed it to the system from developer bulkbanks to ''balance'' their rentals will be overpointed.  It is not supply and demand of members that sets numbers but what justifies RCI's actions in its rentals.

And, yes, HHI is one of the areas that is screwed in the Brave New World of RCI Points Lite.




janej said:


> I just noticed something really strange too.   I recently sold my timeshare at Waterside by Spinnaker in Hilton Head.   We don't go every year and RCI only gave about 30 TPU for summer weeks for close to $700 MF.
> 
> Today, I noticed the TPU required to trade in jumped.   Here are a few examples of the higher TPUs
> 2 Bedrooms	 6 (6)	 Full	 Sat 30-Jun-2012	 Sat 07-Jul-2012	 41
> ...


----------



## 6scoops (Dec 10, 2011)

chriskre said:


> Woo Hoo!!!!  You go Girl!!!
> 
> I too got a nice DVC exchange for only 19 TPU's in a 2 bedroom.
> Vero here I come.
> And this would have cost me 2 years MF's in DVC and I still couldn't get it.  :annoyed:



off topic I know, but..  I have to say SCORE!!

Love it!!  Vero is my family's favorite vacation.  My kids walked the beach with Dr. Ann Savage (featured in the new Disney Files) to check if any turtle nests had hatched during the night, and sure enough they had to help a baby turtle find its way to the ocean because it did not make it out of the nest with the rest of it's family.  So far RCI hasn't raised the tpu  for Vero Beach,  I hope it stays that way!


----------



## Margariet (Dec 10, 2011)

Carolinian said:


> The smart thing for a London, or indeed UK, resort to do is what Sloan Garden Court resort in London did, and that is kick RCI out the door and start using a different exchange company as your main exchange provider.  In their case it was SFX.  Or what the Seasons chain did and switch to II.



You mean 'Sloane Gardens Club' in Chelsea which exists of only 10 apartments which are mostly rented out. I wouldn't change to SFX fot that!


----------



## tombo (Dec 10, 2011)

Margariet said:


> You mean 'Sloane Gardens Club' in Chelsea which exists of only 10 apartments which are mostly rented out. I wouldn't change to SFX fot that!



See there you go with those pesky facts. Only 10 apts that are mainly rented out is his shining example of a highly desired London resort that left RCI for SFX. What a joke. Carolinian disregards facts and suspends all reality when he posts his hate about RCI.

I am sure that neither RCI nor SFX ever saw or will see many of these for exchange as the resort has an agressive rental program for only 10 units. What a loss to RCI. :rofl: http://www.sloanegardensclub.co.uk/rentals.phtml

It is always amazing to me that Carolinian spends so much time and effort hating a company he does not exchange with, has not exchanged with in years, and an RCI he has said that he will never deposit a week with again. Why can't he just move on? 

When I am spending New year's eve in New orleans courtesy of RCI, Mardis Gras in New Orleans courtesy of RCI, my anniversarry in New York city at the MC on an RCI exchange, and during my other upcoming exchanges I will be a very happy RCI member as I have gotten every exchange I want for the upcoming year.  Nobody can make me unhappy with an RCI that is working very well for the exchanges I want just because they dislike it, not even Carolinian.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 11, 2011)

Margariet said:


> You mean 'Sloane Gardens Club' in Chelsea which exists of only 10 apartments which are mostly rented out. I wouldn't change to SFX fot that!



The fact that it is easier to trade into London through SFX than RCI is the real fact that makes a difference.  Availibility at Sloan Garden at SFX comes up more often at SFX than Allen House or other London comes up at RCI.

As to Manhattan Club, that also is availble through SFX, and without 1) the outrageous ''hospitality fee'' charged to RCI exchangers, and 2) the 1 in 4 rule that RCI imposes and SFX does not.


----------



## Mayble (Dec 11, 2011)

chriskre said:


> Woo Hoo!!!!  You go Girl!!!
> 
> I too got a nice DVC exchange for only 19 TPU's in a 2 bedroom.
> Vero here I come.
> And this would have cost me 2 years MF's in DVC and I still couldn't get it.  :annoyed:



I also got a two bedroom unit at Vero Beach for May.  I was so excited!  There was also a two bedroom for HHI for the same week, but it was gone before I could grab it. I find TPU for DVC Vero and HHI are very reasonable.


----------



## Mel (Dec 11, 2011)

Carolinian said:


> The fact that it is easier to trade into London through SFX than RCI is the real fact that makes a difference.  Availibility at Sloan Garden at SFX comes up more often at SFX than Allen House or other London comes up at RCI.
> 
> As to Manhattan Club, that also is availble through SFX, and without 1) the outrageous ''hospitality fee'' charged to RCI exchangers, and 2) the 1 in 4 rule that RCI imposes and SFX does not.


But is SFX getting that Sloan Garden inventory as exchanges, or are they allowing exchangers to use rental inventory?  If the latter, then something someone else deposited must be rented out to cover the cost of the Sloan Garden inventory.  The exact thing that upsets you about RCI: co-mingling of exchange and rental inventory.

How do you suppose RCI gets inventory at some of the most popular new resorts, when there are not enough new owners making deposits?  SFX probably offered them a better deal, and was willing to take a smaller cut.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 12, 2011)

Mel said:


> But is SFX getting that Sloan Garden inventory as exchanges, or are they allowing exchangers to use rental inventory?  If the latter, then something someone else deposited must be rented out to cover the cost of the Sloan Garden inventory.  The exact thing that upsets you about RCI: co-mingling of exchange and rental inventory.
> 
> How do you suppose RCI gets inventory at some of the most popular new resorts, when there are not enough new owners making deposits?  SFX probably offered them a better deal, and was willing to take a smaller cut.



Sloane Garden is a timeshare and SFX deposits are timeshare deposits.  I am sure that Allen House, Manhattane Club and similar resorts have quite a few owners who rent, too, rather than puttiing their weeks up for exchange.

As usual, you are jumping to conclusions in your attempts to defend RCI. I well remember some of your more unusual arguments as you were one of the very last holdout ''deniers'' on RCI's rentals to the general public and then shifted to being a defender of those practices.

As to ''popular'' new resorts, the key word is _new_.  Developers need bodies at those resorts, both for the image for the benefit of sales prospects of active people having fun, and also to be sales prospects themselves.  Developers used to just bulkbank developer weeks with exchange companies for this purpose, and some still do, but now many either rent them in bulk at a cheap price to exchange companies or they do rentals themselves directly  or both.  The developer needs bodies at the new resort and has to get them somehow.


----------



## Margariet (Dec 12, 2011)

Sloane Gardens Club is also being rented out by SFX. I don't see any difference with RCI. It's the same practice as with extra vacations with RCI. Only a few weeks are done by exchange, most of them are rented out via payment. Or are rented out directly by Sloane Gardens Club.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 12, 2011)

Margariet said:


> Sloane Gardens Club is also being rented out by SFX. I don't see any difference with RCI. It's the same practice as with extra vacations with RCI. Only a few weeks are done by exchange, most of them are rented out via payment. Or are rented out directly by Sloane Gardens Club.



I will you Ask SFX on another t/s board about your accusation, and post their response.

Occaisionally, a Sloane Garden week such as a late cancellation does show up on SFX's selloff list, which are rentals of exchange deposits, but done at the last minute, like DAE's bonus weeks.  That is a horse of a different color from RCI immediately putting exchange deposits into their rental pool as soon as they are deposited.  Surely you can comprehend the vast difference in those practices.

Also, Sloane Garden is hardly the only English resort that handles rentals for their members who wish to rent.  Many US resorts do the same, as do South African resorts.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 12, 2011)

Are they now being honest enough to give you the exact same number of points lite for a deposit as they charge for an exchange of the same week at the same point in time, or are they still at their old flim-flam on that?




tombo said:


> RCI has been adjusting TPU's based on demand very agressivelly recently. I put a Mardis Gras New Orleans studio on hold for 22 tpu's. I could not believe I had found a Mardis Gras week and was thrilled that it was only 22 TPU's. My wife could could not get off of work so I let it go. The next day she found out she could get off and I went back to find the same unit had risen to 29 tpu's in 24 hours. None of the January, February, or March non Mardis Gras weeks had increased, only the dates during Mardis Gras. It is like RCI said Oh I see why those are disappearing so fast, it is Mardis Geas. Duhh!
> 
> A couple of months ago before RCI adjusted the high demand weeks I booked a New Years Eve/Sugar Bowl week in a NOLA studiofor 13 TPU's. I know that was wayy too cheap for the demand for that week in NOLA, but I was happy to snag it.. Looking at the deposit calculator that week had a max tpu of 15 this year. Next year the deposit calculator shows that exact week is worth 20 TPU's for deposit.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mel (Dec 12, 2011)

First, Carolinian, I never denied that RCI rented out weeks - I have always maintained that they swapped weeks out of exchange inventory in order to balance the equation when they placed rental inventory INTO to exchange pool.  How else did people get brand new resorts as exchanges, when the new owners weren't depositing their weeks?  Developer inventory is not exchange inventory, and the developers do expect to be compensated in some way for those weeks.  They used to be compensated through "bonus weeks" that were given either to prospects as part of their tour incentives, or to new owners in exchange for their deposits.  Did you ever tour Massanutten, or any other place where you know they didn't have the really high demand, yet somehow RCI awarded a bonus week to every deposit?  Those weren't RCI awards, those were from the developer, used to make it look like RCI really wanted those weeks!  I haven't heard of any developers pushing those bonus weeks anymore, so RCI must have found another way to compensate them - and perhaps with the ability of those resorts to market rentals online, they wanted cash, not credits for bonus weeks (which were somewhat worthless anyway).

SFX touts that they have access to loads of inventory for many sources, including other exchange companies.  If that is the case, one would expect that they are trading their own inventory to these other exchange companies to get what they need to satisfy their customers.  Or in some cases, they may even be renting out weeks so they can use the cash to rent the weeks their members want (to entice them to deposit the best of the best weeks).  Even SFX eliminated their bonus weeks, and now have "lifestyle weeks" which are simply a discount on their rentals.  And similar discounts can be found with a bit of online research - just like with cruise exchanges (which incidentally, SFX also offers, just like RCI).

So it sounds like it's OK in your book, for a small exchange company such as SFX, to conduct business in this manner, but not OK for RCI.  The business models are similar - do what you can to secure the inventory that will please your customers.  RCI shouldn't be in the rental business, but SFX is just as much into rentals as RCI, if not more!  So, is SFX an exchange company, or a multi-faceted travel organization?    If SFX does it, it's a good business practice, if RCI does it's evin incarnate.


----------



## Margariet (Dec 12, 2011)

Carolinian said:


> I will you Ask SFX on another t/s board about your accusation, and post their response.
> 
> Occaisionally, a Sloane Garden week such as a late cancellation does show up on SFX's selloff list, which are rentals of exchange deposits, but done at the last minute, like DAE's bonus weeks.  That is a horse of a different color from RCI immediately putting exchange deposits into their rental pool as soon as they are deposited.  Surely you can comprehend the vast difference in those practices.
> 
> Also, Sloane Garden is hardly the only English resort that handles rentals for their members who wish to rent.  Many US resorts do the same, as do South African resorts.



Accusation?? Nobody committed a crime.  Just business: Sloane Gardens Club rents out. You can see it on their website. So does SFX. You can see it on their website. There are many weeks to rent. They can't be all cancellations.


----------



## Margariet (Dec 12, 2011)

[Carolinian, I am posting this so you can post it on the other forum since I am not a member of it. That SFX representative is not very professional in his reaction but we have seen that before from other companies!]

90 days in advance is also renting out. SFX does that all the time. No offense, but that's just the way of the world. RCI does it and all other TS exchange companies do it. Exchange or rent. And Sloane Gardens Club rents out all the time.

I don't defend or offend any TS exchange company. I am not a fan or enemy of any company. We need them, that's all, and we are happy if they give us a good deal. In the past we chose RCI because their inventory is the largest. If SFX would have been larger it could have been an option as well but they are too small and only interested in specific resorts as desposit. If SFX works out for you and for exchange in London, that's fine. But it doesn't mean SFX is the best and RCI or II or DAE or every other company is bad.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 13, 2011)

Here is the thread from Ask SFX on another forum where this question was asked and answered:

http://www.timeshareforums.com/forums/ask-sfx/124392-sloane-garden-london.html


----------



## mav (Dec 13, 2011)

tombo said:


> See there you go with those pesky facts. Only 10 apts that are mainly rented out is his shining example of a highly desired London resort that left RCI for SFX. What a joke. Carolinian disregards facts and suspends all reality when he posts his hate about RCI.
> 
> I am sure that neither RCI nor SFX ever saw or will see many of these for exchange as the resort has an agressive rental program for only 10 units. What a loss to RCI. :rofl: http://www.sloanegardensclub.co.uk/rentals.phtml
> 
> ...


----------



## Margariet (Dec 13, 2011)

Carolinian said:


> Here is the thread from Ask SFX on another forum where this question was asked and answered:
> 
> http://www.timeshareforums.com/forums/ask-sfx/124392-sloane-garden-london.html



I have posted a reaction on that other forum myself, a civil, professional reaction because the representative of SFX posted a very unprofessional, insulting reaction. Very touchy, the SFX people. By the way, it's a very undemocratic forum as well, you cannot post directly, they first judge your post. In my case they moderated my professional reply but assume they have the right to insult me. I am sure the SFX representative has his reasons but it's very unprofessional to take that out on someone from another forum who has nothing to do with SFX, RCI, or Sloane Gardens Club or London or the whole timeshare industry or the tourist industry. I have only noticed that Sloane Gardens Club is a small resort with only 10 apartments who are mostly rented out by Sloane Gardens Club or are available for exchange or rental via SFX and maybe other companies as well? SFX seems to make an important point of renting out only 90 days in advance. Fine, but it's still rental. And that's it for me. Call me ingnorant but I have other things on my mind.


----------



## Cary (Dec 13, 2011)

tombo said:


> RCI has been adjusting TPU's based on demand very agressivelly recently. I put a Mardis Gras New Orleans studio on hold for 22 tpu's. I could not believe I had found a Mardis Gras week and was thrilled that it was only 22 TPU's. My wife could could not get off of work so I let it go. The next day she found out she could get off and I went back to find the same unit had risen to 29 tpu's in 24 hours. None of the January, February, or March non Mardis Gras weeks had increased, only the dates during Mardis Gras. It is like RCI said Oh I see why those are disappearing so fast, it is Mardis Geas. Duhh!
> 
> A couple of months ago before RCI adjusted the high demand weeks I booked a New Years Eve/Sugar Bowl week in a NOLA studiofor 13 TPU's. I know that was wayy too cheap for the demand for that week in NOLA, but I was happy to snag it.. Looking at the deposit calculator that week had a max tpu of 15 this year. Next year the deposit calculator shows that exact week is worth 20 TPU's for deposit.
> 
> ...


I am not a RCI member. I belong to the II Exchange System. I own at two II resorts and one RCI resort. all are deed weeks. 

My question , what does TPU stand for?  Trading Power points or what?  I love my deeded weeks and find the point system confusing from reading on the board.


----------



## tombo (Dec 13, 2011)

TPU is I believe trading power units. Under the new RCI weeks program you can search any resort and see how many TPU's it will cost to reserve the week. You can also use a deposit calculator and see how many TPU's RCI will give you if you deposit your week. No more wondering if your week will trade for a summer week at the beach, Disney, Hawaii, etc. You know what your week is worth before you deposit it and you know what resorts you are looking for will coast. Also you can deposit 2 years worth of your week and conmbine the TPU's into one larger amount for a $99 combining fee. 

The system has been on TPU's less than 2 years and the values have been changing. The good thing is that if you deposit your week and your resort is devalued they will not reduce the TPU's you received when you deposited it. However if your deposited week sees an increase in TPU value they can increase the TPU's.


----------



## bnoble (Dec 13, 2011)

I think it is perfectly fair for anyone considering doing business with SFX to read the various threads to which their corporate representative has referred, read the corporate representative's response, and draw your own conclusions.

In general, SFX seems to be working hard to innovate and provide new ways of delivering value to potential customers.  I like that, respect that, and appreciate the fact that they are working hard to earn business.  I also appreciate that their corporate representative has been up front about the fact that while they would accept weeks from one of my resorts as deposits, those deposits would not be valued particularly highly in their system, and might not deliver results.  I REALLY appreciate it when someone tells me when their business *won't* help me, so that I don't get frustrated down the road.

Likewise, the corporate representative has also been happy to offer opinions about what resorts/times would generate the best possible deposits for my point-based ownerships.  True, you have to ask, but they will tell you if you do.

On the other hand, I do agree that the corporate representative can be unprofessional at times in his written communication.  That, plus the many mixed reviews in terms of results delivered for exchanges gives me pause.  It seems that people either get amazing results regularly from SFX, or they find the whole process very frustrating.  I'm still not sure I understand how to tell what the difference is.  So, I have been hesitant to actually take the plunge, because my other options are more "known quantities" and I have been happy with the value I have gotten from them so far.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Dec 13, 2011)

You said that very well, Brian.  

I was one of those who was frustrated with SFX for a long time, then I started dealing with one person there, and my opinion changed 180 degrees.  

I am not necessarily going to extend our Platinum membership, because we are doing very well with II and RCI at this time.  I may extend it, simply because our kids love San Francisco, and SFX is the ideal way to get exactly the dates you want, and at the top resorts.  

It's such a boost to our timeshare values having so many choices.  And SFX loves getting those smaller 1 bedrooms at SBP, which II apparently doesn't value as much as in the past.  

Maybe I just talked myself into extending that membership another five years.  (I would bet it's very expensive now.)


----------



## bnoble (Dec 13, 2011)

> I was one of those who was frustrated with SFX for a long time, then I started dealing with one person there, and my opinion changed 180 degrees.


You're not the first person who has said this. SFX seems to be the sort of place where a personal relationship with the right employee goes a long way.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Dec 13, 2011)

Margariet said:


> I have posted a reaction on that other forum myself, a civil, professional reaction because the representative of SFX posted a very unprofessional, insulting reaction. Very touchy, the SFX people. By the way, it's a very undemocratic forum as well, you cannot post directly, they first judge your post. In my case they moderated my professional reply but assume they have the right to insult me. I am sure the SFX representative has his reasons but it's very unprofessional to take that out on someone from another forum who has nothing to do with SFX, RCI, or Sloane Gardens Club or London or the whole timeshare industry or the tourist industry. I have only noticed that Sloane Gardens Club is a small resort with only 10 apartments who are mostly rented out by Sloane Gardens Club or are available for exchange or rental via SFX and maybe other companies as well? SFX seems to make an important point of renting out only 90 days in advance. Fine, but it's still rental. And that's it for me. Call me ingnorant but I have other things on my mind.



Your message was far from professional.  You made 4 insults in that message which makes it very unprofessional.  Your post was edited to remove the insults.  The remainder of your post is there. You were simply asked to be more civil in your postings.  The same type of moderation happens on TUG.  

By the way, an SFX representative had nothing to do with the editing of your post.  It was a TS4Ms moderator who did it.

Regarding the need for pre-moderation, that only happens in the exchange company forums.  That policy was instituted after a number of problem posts requiring its implementation.


----------



## Margariet (Dec 13, 2011)

BocaBum99 said:


> Your message was far from professional.  You made 4 insults in that message which makes it very unprofessional.  Your post was edited to remove the insults.  The remainder of your post is there. You were simply asked to be more civil in your postings.  The same type of moderation happens on TUG.
> 
> By the way, an SFX representative had nothing to do with the editing of your post.  It was a TS4Ms moderator who did it.
> 
> Regarding the need for pre-moderation, that only happens in the exchange company forums.  That policy was instituted after a number of problem posts requiring its implementation.



There were no insults from my part. I consider freedom of speech very important. Moderating a forum in that way kills the freedom of speech of the people. I am glad there is a democratic freedom of speech on this forum and I will not post anymore or read the postings on that other forum.

I posted only a reaction to very touchy, unprofessional and emotional postings on the other forum referring to my posting on this forum regarding the 10 apartments of Sloane Gardens Club. In the two postings at the start of the topic big words were used referring to me and my posting, like 'accusation', 'accusing', 'big advocate of RCI', 'misinformation', 'disinformation', 'lack of knowledge', 'unconscionable', 'reckless', 'irresponsible', 'without any basis', 'without merit', 'without understanding', 'the norm on certain websites', and last but not least: 'why they don't have the courage to post in the SFX forum, where they can get a direct answer?' 

I really don't understand how people can get so touchy and upset about the fact that I told that Sloane Gardens Club has only 10 apartment which are rented out by the resort, or are available via exchange or rental by SFX. Renting seems to be a crime and I was told that I accused SFX of renting! I know now that SFX only rents out 90 days in advance which is still rental to me. According to another poster I am 'ignorant' which I consider an insult as well. Even if I don't know that renting by SFX, RCI, or any other timeshare exchange company is a crime, and I just write down information which I thought was only informative business facts, there is no reason to make such a fuss about it. I wrote in my posting: much a do about nothing. But that was removed. And I told the posters to leave me or the others in peace or something like that, which was removed. And now I will stop about this because I have other things on my mind like I said before. This issue is too silly for words.


----------



## MuranoJo (Dec 13, 2011)

Margariet,
I'm not so sure they were referring to you.


----------



## tombo (Dec 13, 2011)

rickandcindy23 said:


> You said that very well, Brian.
> 
> I was one of those who was frustrated with SFX for a long time, then I started dealing with one person there, and my opinion changed 180 degrees.



This is another problem I have with SFX. With RCI/II it is a fair playing field. Any member of either exchange company (RCI/II) can get online and search for exchanges with equal chance of getting the week they want. There is no favoritism or special reps who help certain members. 

In SFX if a member has  a good relationship with the right SFX person (as many others here on TUG have detailed in the past) they can get access to inventory not available to other members who don't have the same relationship. I understand how you like it now that you have established ties with an SFX employee who gets you things you couldn't get before, but not all SFX members get to deal with that person, and for most the frustration does not go away.  

In RCI/II you and myself are competing for weeks on an even, fair basis. With SFX you have a huge advantage. Why would I deposit my weeks with SFX  when you get better exchanges than I can with the same deposit simply because you know who to call, and when you call they know you? Answer, I won't.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 14, 2011)

(Responding to your post [in response to Margariet] about a TimeshareForums moderators action on her post)

Pre-moderation on boards for exchange company reps is not at all uncommon. When TUG had an Ask RCI board, that was heavily moderated, with sometimes entire questions being removed.  There is always a danger in such situations of someone with a chip on their shoulder running off the reps. Maybe I am biased as a TS4MS moderator myself, but I think there is softer moderation there than existed at TUG on the Ask RCI board.  While there is a legitimate reason for such moderation on that type of board, I know that I myself largely quit bothering to read the Ask RCI board when I saw several of what I thought were legitimate questions asked by others disappear into the ether.  Also on the boards for exchange company reps, what might be considered a personal insult is judged much more broadly.  I have not seen Syd delete anything from posts on that basis, except when someone was attacking an exchange company rep.  And instead of removing the entire comment, Syd left the substance of what Margariet had to say, just removing the barbs she threw at the exchange company rep.




BocaBum99 said:


> Your message was far from professional.  You made 4 insults in that message which makes it very unprofessional.  Your post was edited to remove the insults.  The remainder of your post is there. You were simply asked to be more civil in your postings.  The same type of moderation happens on TUG.
> 
> By the way, an SFX representative had nothing to do with the editing of your post.  It was a TS4Ms moderator who did it.
> 
> Regarding the need for pre-moderation, that only happens in the exchange company forums.  That policy was instituted after a number of problem posts requiring its implementation.


----------



## heathpack (Dec 14, 2011)

As the person who ignited the current firestorm of bad blood between Mark at SFX and TUG, I would just like to say that I had no issue with the rep I was working with at SFX. Like many others suggested, I was in contact with one particular rep and I was happy with the one exchange I made. 

My negative comment for SFX is the cost of their bonus weeks in my particular scenario. Because of the nature of my job, because I am typically flying on FF tix, and because my main other mode of vacationing is on a charter sailboat we own, I must book all travel except weekend trips about a year out. Additionally, the SFX inventory that I am most interested in is NYC, London, and Grand Mayans and these are all subject to upgrade fees. Now don't go putting words in my mouth, these are nice locations and I did not say an upgrade fee is an outrage. All I am saying is that the upgrade fee exists and that is must be factored in when I try to assess the usefulness of the SFX bonus week. With the new Lifestyle Week program, the cost of bonus weeks used on my timeframe went up, making this an even worse value for me unless I get into the really close-in booking window, in which case they become cheap enough for me to use for a weekend trip. However, SFXs inventory in the places I can easily drive for a weekend would be hit-or-miss (Palm Springs, Scottsdale, Sedona, San Diego- I'm really not interested in So Cal beach off season, I could just go spend the weekend on my sailboat in the off season for charters) compared to II.  I know Mark commented that the average price of a bonus week went down with the new program, but the average cost is not what any individual will experience.

Compounding the cost issue for me with SFX is a quirk with the way Hyatt trades in II vs SFX.  Basically, I must always give SFX more of a deposit than I ever need to give II to obtain the same thing.  If I give SFX a diamond 1BR unit, that costs me 1450 points, that will get me a 1BR unit in SFX or a 2BR if I am willing to pay for an upgrade or Platinum membership.  However, if I deposit 1300 points in II, I am entitled to a 2BR red week.  So I have been looking for some way to justify the additional expense I incur with SFX and the two possible ways would be: SFX can get me something that I want but can't get through II -OR- they offer me an enticing bonus.

Yes, SFX can get me NYC or London, but they tell me I have to be willing to accept a hotel room/studio, and if I am going to do that I can just use hotel points for a free stay.  So that leaves us with the Grand Mayans, are they worth it to me?  Probably not, I can get some other nice Mexico or Grand Luxxe through II.

So that brings us back to the bonus weeks.  For my usage, the costs of these add up and becomes *comparable* to a rental. I never meant to imply that they were *literally* rentals (yes, I know that I did in fact say they were rentals, and that is my fault for not making it clear that I was speaking metaphorically).  The goal of my post was not to spread lies or damage a person's business, it was to offer an analysis of the SFX bonus weeks program.  Mark's response over-yonder was extremely off-putting to me and I cannot honestly see working with SFX in the future.  However, I do think it is worth setting the record straight as to what I was actually talking about when I wrote my original post in the other thread.

H


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 14, 2011)

That beats the institutionalized unlevel playing field at RCI where they put their thumb on the scales thanks to developer politicking and overpoint some resorts with relatively weak supply / demand curves and underpoint others with very strong supply / demand curves.




tombo said:


> This is another problem I have with SFX. With RCI/II it is a fair playing field. Any member of either exchange company (RCI/II) can get online and search for exchanges with equal chance of getting the week they want. There is no favoritism or special reps who help certain members.
> 
> In SFX if a member has  a good relationship with the right SFX person (as many others here on TUG have detailed in the past) they can get access to inventory not available to other members who don't have the same relationship. I understand how you like it now that you have established ties with an SFX employee who gets you things you couldn't get before, but not all SFX members get to deal with that person, and for most the frustration does not go away.
> 
> In RCI/II you and myself are competing for weeks on an even, fair basis. With SFX you have a huge advantage. Why would I deposit my weeks with SFX  when you get better exchanges than I can with the same deposit simply because you know who to call, and when you call they know you? Answer, I won't.


----------



## heathpack (Dec 14, 2011)

Carolinian said:


> That beats the institutionalized unlevel playing field at RCI where they put their thumb on the scales thanks to developer politicking and overpoint some resorts with relatively weak supply / demand curves and underpoint others with very strong supply / demand curves.



An unlevel playing field is an unlevel playing field, IMO, regardless of the underlying justification for it.  I have no issue with an unlevel playing field, am willing to invest the time to learn where I can obtain my greatest advantage.

It is all the same to me: learn to play II's game or RCI's game or SFX's game.  Whatever game works is the game I'm willing to play. That's part of what TUG is all about- learning to use these various timeshare exchange scenarios- isn't it?

H


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Dec 14, 2011)

tombo said:


> This is another problem I have with SFX. With RCI/II it is a fair playing field. Any member of either exchange company (RCI/II) can get online and search for exchanges with equal chance of getting the week they want. There is no favoritism or special reps who help certain members.
> 
> In SFX if a member has  a good relationship with the right SFX person (as many others here on TUG have detailed in the past) they can get access to inventory not available to other members who don't have the same relationship. I understand how you like it now that you have established ties with an SFX employee who gets you things you couldn't get before, but not all SFX members get to deal with that person, and for most the frustration does not go away.
> 
> In RCI/II you and myself are competing for weeks on an even, fair basis. With SFX you have a huge advantage. Why would I deposit my weeks with SFX  when you get better exchanges than I can with the same deposit simply because you know who to call, and when you call they know you? Answer, I won't.



I love RCI and II.  I don't even care if RCI increases TPU's (Original Topic), because I believe it is truly based on demand.  [We could actually increase demand on TUG with a concerted effort to place requests for certain areas to help one another.  :ignore: Could be a fun new game for some of us.]  

Knowing a rep/ contact at SFX is beneficial because you can remind that person what you are looking for.  It's not about preferential treatment, it's about communcating with someone and getting the assurance they are working on it.  Just entering an ongoing request with SFX felt futile.  Communcation is the responsibility of the member, in my opinion.  SFX is still looking for your match, but you have to call and check on it.  

It's actually the same with II and RCI.  Sometimes a call nets a result that an ongoing search will not.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 14, 2011)

If your resort is overpointed, you don't really need to learn anything to take advantage of the situation.  On the other hand, if it is underpointed, then nothing you can learn can help you get a fair shake.  Resorts still in developer sales tend to be the ones most often overpointed, while sold out resorts, especially those not connected with big national management companies tend to be the ones most likely to be underpointed.




heathpack said:


> An unlevel playing field is an unlevel playing field, IMO, regardless of the underlying justification for it.  I have no issue with an unlevel playing field, am willing to invest the time to learn where I can obtain my greatest advantage.
> 
> It is all the same to me: learn to play II's game or RCI's game or SFX's game.  Whatever game works is the game I'm willing to play. That's part of what TUG is all about- learning to use these various timeshare exchange scenarios- isn't it?
> 
> H


----------



## Margariet (Dec 14, 2011)

muranojo said:


> Margariet,
> I'm not so sure they were referring to you.



You're right! They were only referring to themselves!   If people on another forum can get so emotional and hysterical about my posting on this forum which I thought was pure informative and not pointed to anyone than they have a problem! And calling me accusing and insultive is pretty hilarious! Some people identify themselves too much with their company! :hysterical:  I think no one will even understand what I am talking about, I can hardly remember it myself! :zzz:


----------

