# Carolinian was Right



## Carol C (Jul 7, 2009)

For years certain TUGgers bashed him for posting that RCI was taking deposits and renting them out instead of making them available to members for exchange. I wish so-called "guru" Madge of RCI was still on TUG...I'd post this on her forum instead of here. Here's to you, Madge!  

P.S. Here's what I just posted to Sightings; I assume it's ok that I'm re-posting here for TUG "Guests" to see. No Sighting of exchange inventory is being divulged publicly with this post (it's just inventory available via RCI's long-running rental scheme). 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Proof that RCI is renting first, then making available for exchange!

My SoCalif prime summer (July 4, banked two yrs in advance) week does not see a single Manhattan Club as being available for exchange. But the bulk-spacebank Sighting seen with HGVC and posted on TUG this morning sure is available to RCI dues-paying members...just with cold hard cash...and big bucks at that. Check it out:

Units that meet your criteria Total Units Available: 44
Unit Type Max Occup
(Privacy) Kitchen Check-In Date Check-Out Date Price
Studio 4 (2) Partial 16-Jan-2010 23-Jan-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 23-Jan-2010 30-Jan-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 30-Jan-2010 06-Feb-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 06-Feb-2010 13-Feb-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 20-Feb-2010 27-Feb-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 27-Feb-2010 06-Mar-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 06-Mar-2010 13-Mar-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 13-Mar-2010 20-Mar-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 20-Mar-2010 27-Mar-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 27-Mar-2010 03-Apr-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 17-Apr-2010 24-Apr-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 24-Apr-2010 01-May-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 01-May-2010 08-May-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 08-May-2010 15-May-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 15-May-2010 22-May-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 22-May-2010 29-May-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 29-May-2010 05-Jun-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 05-Jun-2010 12-Jun-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 12-Jun-2010 19-Jun-2010 $1,538.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 13-Feb-2010 20-Feb-2010 $1,736.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 03-Apr-2010 10-Apr-2010 $1,736.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 10-Apr-2010 17-Apr-2010 $1,736.99
Studio 4 (2) Partial 19-Jun-2010 26-Jun-2010 $1,925.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 15-Jan-2010 22-Jan-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 22-Jan-2010 29-Jan-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 29-Jan-2010 05-Feb-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 05-Feb-2010 12-Feb-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 19-Feb-2010 26-Feb-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 26-Feb-2010 05-Mar-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 05-Mar-2010 12-Mar-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 12-Mar-2010 19-Mar-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 19-Mar-2010 26-Mar-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 16-Apr-2010 23-Apr-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 23-Apr-2010 30-Apr-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 30-Apr-2010 07-May-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 07-May-2010 14-May-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 14-May-2010 21-May-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 21-May-2010 28-May-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 28-May-2010 04-Jun-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 04-Jun-2010 11-Jun-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 11-Jun-2010 18-Jun-2010 $1,808.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 02-Apr-2010 09-Apr-2010 $2,033.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 09-Apr-2010 16-Apr-2010 $2,033.99
1 BR 4 (4) Partial 18-Jun-2010 25-Jun-2010 $2,258.99


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 7, 2009)

Just so that you know, these weeks are available through Points.


----------



## Carol C (Jul 7, 2009)

"Roger" said:


> Just so that you know, these weeks are available through Points.



If I recall, Carolinian also said that Points was a RCI business scheme that would rob weeks exchangers of their opportunites. But thanks for posting Roger...that is good to know so thanks for checking RCI points program inventory.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 7, 2009)

Carol C said:


> If I recall, Carolinian also said that Points was a RCI business scheme that would rob weeks exchangers of their opportunites. But thanks for posting Roger...that is good to know so thanks for checking RCI points program inventory.



I guess Carolinian was wrong after all.  Thanks for proving to us beyond any reasonable doubt how quickly people make false allegations against RCI.

I'll bet you were sure you were right.  That's exactly how other false accusers feel as well.  Absolutely sure RCI is doing wrong, but wrong in their proof.

RCI sucks.  That is the only thing I can verify with the facts.  I firmly believe that most of what RCI does wrong against exchangers is simply bad execution rather than malicious intent.  End result is the same.  But, it puts the onus on the consumer to be accountable for their own decisions to stay or leave RCI rather than rely on government intervention.


----------



## sml2181 (Jul 7, 2009)

Sorry for the confusion - I should have mentioned I saw them in RCI points.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 7, 2009)

*Wrong theory and wrong moves*



Carol C said:


> For years certain TUGgers bashed him for posting that RCI was taking deposits and renting them out instead of making them available to members for exchange. I wish so-called "guru" Madge of RCI was still on TUG...I'd post this on her forum instead of here. Here's to you, Madge!



Few denied that RCI was renting out deposits - that wasn't in question. The question was did they have that right (and yes, according to the agreement you accept at deposit they do) and if it was in fact "leftovers" or trades without an equal match value (and cases could be made that they were being stolen or that they were beyond the value of what was being used to request them - that's why points which can adjust for value "see's" time weeks can't). Carolinian wasn't "right" but twisting the obvious results to fit his preconceived idea of how things should work. 

The bigger question was one of personal responsibility for your own actions. No one was or is forced to give RCI anything. If you decide to do so you should be fully aware of how RCI handles those deposits. The clear and easy answer is if you don't like it don't use it!  But if you decide to use them you are accepting the rules as they clearly present them and you had better be ready to take the results.  It is a voluntary system and if it is really so bad then the users would speak with their dollars and deposits to shut it down. That is the real answer not bellyaching on BBS venues or costly and ultimately failed class actions.  Hit them where it hurts if you wnat it to change.


----------



## Lisa P (Jul 7, 2009)

I'm still confused.  Is this rental inventory from a large HGVC-points based resort that's still in developer sales?  Just high-priced developer rentals?  Is it also available for exchanging in, via RCI Points?  What am I missing?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 7, 2009)

timeos2 said:


> Few denied that RCI was renting out deposits - that wasn't in question. The question was did they have that right (and yes, according to the agreement you accept at deposit they do) and if it was in fact "leftovers" or trades without an equal match value (and cases could be made that they were being stolen or that they were beyond the value of what was being used to request them - that's why points which can adjust for value "see's" time weeks can't). *Carolinian wasn't "right" but twisting the obvious results to fit his preconceived idea of how things should work. *
> 
> *The bigger question was one of personal responsibility for your own actions. No one was or is forced to give RCI anything. If you decide to do so you should be fully aware of how RCI handles those deposits. The clear and easy answer is if you don't like it don't use it!*  But if you decide to use them you are accepting the rules as they clearly present them and you had better be ready to take the results.  It is a voluntary system and if it is really so bad then the users would speak with their dollars and deposits to shut it down. That is the real answer not bellyaching on BBS venues or costly and ultimately failed class actions.  Hit them where it hurts if you wnat it to change.




I completely agree with what you've said especially the bold.


----------



## richardm (Jul 7, 2009)

Amen.. Great statements..


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jul 7, 2009)

*Carolinian Is Always Right.*




> Carolinian was Right


I don't always agree with him & for sure his preferences are not always the same as mine, but he runs rings around most of the rest of us in timeshare savvy & I would never directly challenge his timeshare pronouncements. 

I might needle him a bit over some of his idiosyncrasies, but I would never out & out say he's wrong. 

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


----------



## Mel (Jul 7, 2009)

There could be multiple sources for these weeks - as far as I know, Manhatten Club bulk deposits their units, so these may be coming directly from the resort, not the individual owners.  They also may be deposits to the points side of the system.  If that is the case, why would they show up on the weeks side as exchanges?  If they are points, but being made available both as points reservations or as rentals, then RCI is doing the right thing by making the rental portion available to weeks members.

Perhaps someone here who owns at MC could tell us what the situation is there - what percentage of weeks are owned by the HOA vs members?  Are most members on the weeks side or points side?

While I agree that there have been problems with RCI, I don't see this inventory as proof of anything.

As others have mentioned, the RCI terms of membership are pretty clear about what RCI can do with the inventory.  If people don't like the terms of membership, they shouldn't join, or they shouldn't deposit their weeks.  The whole system of exchanging has changed over the last decade and some of those "improvements" we have seen are partly responsible for the changes in the available inventory.

If would be interesting to know what percentage of RCI exchanges have involved an online search - particularly what percentage of those booked on the spot.  I don't just mean confirmed online, but where the member searched and then called to hold or confirm the week...

What percentage of members have exchanged into larger units that what they were originally searching for...  

What percentage of members are using various internet resources to differentiate between resorts when making their reservations - not just here, but the various other sources for ratings - and what percentage of those turned down resorts they might have accepted in the past in favor of higher rated resorts...  

What percentage have taken exchanges to places they wouldn't have tried before because they were able to run more broad searches...

The internet has changed the behavior of RCI's membership, and I don't think RCI has adapted well to those changes.  Think of our own behavior within our membership.  TUG insituted review awards, available to those who review resorts that haven't been reviewed in a long time.  Many of those resorts don't get reviews because TUG members don't want to visit them.  They are rated lower than other options in the area, so why go there if you can score a better exchange?  Which of course only increases the demand for the better resorts, and lower it for the "lesser" resorts, making them that much easier to echange in.  Now consider that on a grander scale.  No doubt RCI has placed some questionable weeks into the rental pool, but I don't think it is responsible for every ill in the system.  The inventory at the newest resorts has to come from somewhere, and the resorts may not be "giving" those weeks to RCI as they did in the past, but requiring something significant in return.  It is quite possible RCI is pulling those top exchange deposits to compensate for developer deposits.

Used to be, when a new resort joined RCI (or a developer opened a new phase), much of that inventory would be deposited to RCI, in exchange for bonus week certificates, which the resorts gave out for various reasons.  RCI got inventory that would otherwise sit empty (they weren't sold yet), and the resort would get new blood in for presentations.  The resorts also had the bonus weeks to use as incentives to either tour or purchase.  But we all know how valuable those bonus weeks became.

Fast forward to now.  New resort is built, plenty of inventory, but the resort wants MORE for those weeks, because they know they are high demand weeks.  RCI still wants those weeks for the same reason, so they work something out.  They have 100 requests for the new resort, and also 100 or more weeks on deposit that are of equivalent demand, but that have no pending requests (or none that qualify).  Rather than rent the units at the new resort (which doesn't do anything for RCI), they put those weeks into the spacebank, and remove an equal number of equivalent deposits.  They rent those weeks, and use the proceeds to pay for the inventory from the resort.

If we saw the inventory from the new resort in the rental pool, would we be upset?  No, because that's a new resort, and there are no owners to deposit.  But the exchanges into that resort have to be balanced somewhere.


----------



## MuranoJo (Jul 8, 2009)

I have heard over and over again, if you don't llike what RCI offers, you always have the option of not depositing with them.  And that is true.

However, I also think *there is no wrong in voicing dissatisfaction with any service provider with whom you do business*.  Sure, you know you have options, but you may have gone into the relationship with a different understanding.  Your salesperson could have misled you (not necessarily RCI's fault), or you could have been an RCI customer from long ago--before they 'snuck' in the rental wording, or before RCI's business model mutated into rentals, multiple points and 'partner' programs, all of which are drawing from the weeks program with little or no reimbursement.

No harm in sharing dissatisfaction here, but RCI also needs to hear it for what it's worth, and the resurrected class action suit may be one option to speak your mind.

I also think Carolinian has been of great value to this board for many years, and I hope he continues to share his perspective, even if we don't all agree.


----------



## Steve (Jul 8, 2009)

muranojo said:


> However, I also think *there is no wrong in voicing dissatisfaction with any service provider with whom you do business*.



Of course, everyone is free to voice their complaints and concerns.  But, except in very rare circumstances, you can't *force* a company to change the way they do business.  At the end of the day, all you can do is change *your* behavior.  These rants against RCI have been going on for *years*.  

How many times can you beat a dead horse?  :deadhorse: 

At some point, it's time to accept the new reality and move on.

Steve


----------



## MuranoJo (Jul 8, 2009)

I understand what you're saying, Steve, and in no way do I believe we could force changes in RCI.  What I was trying to get across is there are other outlets and ways for people to be proactive. Just because this has been going on ad nauseum here for ages doesn't mean it is a dead horse.  (And it will never be, unless t/s exchanging is completely removed from the t/s ownership equation.)

I fundamentally believe that if all the weeks owners pulled out of RCI, as some would suggest, it might be fun to watch the whole system collapse, but it is not a win situation for any of us.  With this amazing collective power of t/s intelligence, I am keeping an open mind.  I am not convinced we should just accept the new reality, whatever it is today, anyway.


----------



## Jennie (Jul 8, 2009)

Steve said:


> Of course, everyone is free to voice their complaints and concerns.  But, except in very rare circumstances, you can't *force* a company to change the way they do business.  At the end of the day, all you can do is change *your* behavior.  These rants against RCI have been going on for *years*.Steve



Many of us *have* already changed our behavior. We deposit our mediocre and/or junk weeks with RCI, preferably through the PFD option in the RCI Points program, and use our prime valuable weeks ourselves, or rent them for big $$$$ and then use the rental money to rent what we want directly from other owners. I personally know so many people who are already doing this. More will surely follow as the quantity and quality of weeks offered through exchange decreases. 

But forcing us into this mode of behavior means that huge numbers of the great weeks we all crave are just not there for exchange anymore. And much of what does find it's way into the exchange program, gets slipped out the back door as rentals to the public. 

Disgruntled timeshare owners are spreading the word that "this trading thing" doesn't really work as promised by the slick salespeople. This will impact upon future development of new resorts or adding phases to existing resorts. More and more people have heard that timeshares are not a good thing to own anymore.

People who counted on exchanging their week on a regular basis, and cannot get decent exchanges, are more likely to default on their maintenance fees. Senior citizens are no longer bequething timeshares to loved ones. This will cause the remaining owners to have to pay ever-increasing fees to cover the short-fall of the owners no longer paying and unable to sell the weeks to new owners. 

Resale prices have fallen drastically. Many people can't even give away for free a timeshare that was once a good trader and now pulls only junk. Sometimes there's no valid reason for the sharp decline in trade power. RCI is accountable to no one for how it determines trade power. Incompetency, political factors, unholy alliances with certain developers, and greed are but a few factors suspected of playing a role in the process. Who knows for sure?

Maybe if RCI realized how much *potential business* is being lost from their core customer base, present and future, they might see that they will lose much more than they gain over the long haul if they pursue a quick  buck at the expense of the soon-to-be ex-customers who would have provided years of steady business.


----------



## Carol C (Jul 8, 2009)

Nothing in New York City this morning for Weeks members. I guess I could always drive in from Bushkill PA.


----------



## tombo (Jul 8, 2009)

Jennie said:


> Many of us *have* already changed our behavior. We deposit our mediocre and/or junk weeks with RCI, preferably through the PFD option in the RCI Points program, and use our prime valuable weeks ourselves, or rent them for big $$$$ and then use the rental money to rent what we want directly from other owners. .



This is what we all have talked about on tug for a long time, do not buy a week hoping to trade for what you want, buy what you want and use it yourself (or rent it). How many people on TUG who payed $15,000 or more for DVC and $1500 or more in annual MF's would deposit their personal week in RCI hoping to get a trade they feel is equitable? We are all knowledgable enough to out rent those type weeks for enough income to rent Maui or Aruba from another owner with enough money left over to cover some of our vacation expenses. The same TUGGERS who would never deposit their prime weeks expect to be able to trade for other people's prime weeks with the less than prime trader that they are more than happy to deposit.

If you own mediocre /junk weeks which you don't want to stay in yourself, you should only be able to trade for mediocre/junk weeks. Junk in/junk out.  If you expect to get a good trade out of what you yourself acknowledge is mediocre/ junk, you will more often than not be disappointed. Why should RCI give you a good trade for a junk deposit? They shouldn't have in the past and they shouldn't do so now either. The good weeks should only be seen by those who deposit good weeks. If it was me I would be selling those junk weeks for $1 on e-bay rather than depositing them with RCI and hoping for a good exchange. Exchanging mediocre weeks for prime weeks might have worked before the enhancement, but that dog won't hunt anymore.



Jennie said:


> But forcing us into this mode of behavior means that huge numbers of the great weeks we all crave are just not there for exchange anymore. And much of what does find it's way into the exchange program, gets slipped out the back door as rentals to the public. .



The huge number of great weeks were never there, TUGGERS were just knowledgable about how to work the system (buying SA weeks cheap to exchange for top inventory, sightings boards, knowing when bulk deposits were made, etc) and got a disproportinate amount of the great inventory. That is harder to do since the "enhancement", and like most things in life, everyone expects to always be able to do what they used to do. Things change. Either adapt to RCI's changes or quit. If enough people quit RCI might adapt and becme more customer friendly. I hope that does happen because there are many things I dislike about RCI (renting deposited inventory, letting points see weeks inventory, poors phone reps, lack of customer appreciation, etc) Even if that happens they will never be able to create inventory at the hardest to get resorts because few owners will deposit those prime weeks, and we will all be competing for the few prime weeks that they do deposit.



Jennie said:


> Disgruntled timeshare owners are spreading the word that "this trading thing" doesn't really work as promised by the slick salespeople. This will impact upon future development of new resorts or adding phases to existing resorts. More and more people have heard that timeshares are not a good thing to own anymore..



This trading thing never worked like the lying salesmen promised. You could rarely if ever trade a one bed room October week in Colorado for Presiden't week ocean front in a 2 bed room in Hawaii. Salesmen always said buy our cheap week and you can exchange for any high dollar week you want. If their lips are moving they are probably lying. Having a bad reputation is nothing new to timeshares. The bad reputation is mostly due to salespeople's lies and unrealistic expectations from owners rather than being attritutable to RCI.





Jennie said:


> Resale prices have fallen drastically. Many people can't even give away for free a timeshare that was once a good trader and now pulls only junk. Sometimes there's no valid reason for the sharp decline in trade power. RCI is accountable to no one for how it determines trade power. Incompetency, political factors, unholy alliances with certain developers, and greed are but a few factors suspected of playing a role in the process. Who knows for sure?.



Resale prices have fallen because the economy has tanked and unemployement is approaching 10%. People without jobs don't vacation. Marriott's, HGVC, Starwood's (even Harborside), and yes even DVC weeks are selling for prices that would not have been believed 2 years ago, and these weeks are still great traders. If unemployment goes over 10% the prices will drop lower and RCI wll have nothing to do with it.

RCI is accountable to all of it's paying members. If a competitor appears who offers better exchange program, then RCI will adapt or die. Unless there is a mass exodus of members, RCI will continue to operate as they have been doing because they are profitable.



Jennie said:


> Maybe if RCI realized how much *potential business* is being lost from their core customer base, present and future, they might see that they will lose much more than they gain over the long haul if they pursue a quick  buck at the expense of the soon-to-be ex-customers who would have provided years of steady business.




If enough RCI members quit, then RCI might change some things. However they can never get everyone who wants a DVC week in the summer a DVC week to exchange for, or a Maui ocean front available for any week of any year you would like to visit. It is simple supply and demand. Most RCI members deposit weeks they really don't want to use themselves hoping to get the weeks everyone else is trying to get too. The people who own those prime weeks mostly use them for personal use or rent them for profit (as we all do ourselves), so there are few prime deposits. Lots of people want them, few available, the result is many unhappy customers blaming RCI for what often is simply the exchange market responding to the laws of supply and demand.


----------



## bnoble (Jul 8, 2009)

Another thing to consider: with the rise of the Intertubes, it has become _much much easier_ for Joe Owner to rent his desirable week for good money.  You no longer are restricted to advertising in your local paper, and maybe TS Today, to try to find a renter.  You can market your week to anyone, anywhere, at extraordinarily low cost.  Likewise, potental renters looking for time have tools at their disposal to help them find you and your week that were unimaginable not long ago.

As the potential return from renting increases, the value of exchange pales in comparison.  Exchange was great when it was that or advertise in the Picayune Press.  Now, the value proposition is completely different.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jul 8, 2009)

*Points Equals It All Out.*




tombo said:


> If you own mediocre /junk weeks which you don't want to stay in yourself, you should only be able to trade for mediocre/junk weeks. Junk in/junk out.  If you expect to get a good trade out of what you yourself acknowledge is mediocre/ junk, you will more often than not be disappointed. Why should RCI give you a good trade for a junk deposit?


Shux, just glom together the paltry points-values of your humble timeshares & use the combined total to snag somebody else's palatial timeshare. 

Or, contrariwise, bank your big fancypants timeshare for major points & use those to snag lots of points exchanges into other people's humbler timeshares. 

Best of all, bank your so-so timeshares for points, then (within 45 days of check-in) snag full-week reservations into other people's nice timeshares for no more than 9*,*000 points for the whole week. 

I'm not claiming that's as favorable as the outstanding _Good Old Days_ -- if such ever actually existed -- of the long-gone _Golden Age Of RCI_ mourned by Carolinian & others, but for regular walking around timeshare owners who are semi-savvy at best, it's not bad.  

Plus, I am not holding my breath waiting for any return of the _Golden Age._ 

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


----------



## tombo (Jul 8, 2009)

AwayWeGo said:


> Shux, just glom together the paltry points-values of your humble timeshares & use the combined total to snag somebody else's palatial timeshare.
> 
> Or, contrariwise, bank your big fancypants timeshare for major points & use those to snag lots of points exchanges into other people's humbler timeshares.
> 
> ...



The problems with the points system is the same as the problem with weeks, there is limited prime inventory. Depositing 10, 20, or 30 average/mediocre weeks to accumulate mega points does not create a single prime week deposit that you can use those points to get. You can accumulate 100,000 RCI points in your account, but unless a DVC owner (or Disney) deposits a 4th of July week into RCI, you will never spend the 4th at a DVC resort. There has to be the prime inventory deposited by an owner in order for you to use your points to get a prime week. 

To help solve the shortage RCI has wrongly decided that points owners can peruse the weeks deposits (where most inventory exists because there are far more weeks owners than points owners). This makes it even harder for weeks owners to get access to inventory weeks owners deposit. If an equal exchange company appears I will quit RCI over just that. Until a competitor offers me a comparable exchange company I will bite my tongue and remain RCI because they are currently the best game in town IMO.

If you join points, you should only see points inventory since weeks owners can only see weeks inventory. However if they want to allow weeks owners to see points inventory too I would be fine with that. The way RCI is now doing exchanges is giving points owners a huge exchange advantage. This strategy is simply a way for RCI and the resorts to make more money trying to force weeks owners to pay to join points. 

I might not be mad enough to quit RCI yet, but they will not force me to convert my resort ownerships or RCI membership to points. I will simply quit RCI if the advantage they give points members becomes too lopsided.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 8, 2009)

I disagree, Tombo.  There are far more prime weeks in "weeks" than there are in points.  FAR MORE!  Because RCI Weeks owners can see points resorts in weeks.  There are so many more choices in weeks than points, so far.  Maybe that will change and RCI will just let points owners have all of the point inventory, but I don't think so, because many owners in those resorts are weeks owners, not points owners. 

Boca is always right.  RCI may not intentionally hurt owners who choose to exchange with their rotten company, but they sure do--and DID, just six weeks ago.  I am so bitter, having 5 weeks drop from exceptional to mediocre with one keystroke (or whatever they did).  I will never deposit anything into weeks again, unless I cannot sell my Val Chatelle and have to deposit those, and it will only be for the purpose of PFD.  

Foxrun is getting bonus weeks for 2010 AGAIN, but my 2010 weeks are STUCK there in RCI, barely pulling a studio in Hawaii at the non-rated resorts.    I just confirmed two weeks at the Westin Ka'anapali and Westin Princeville, 2 bedrooms, with my 2008 weeks I deposited with II last year.


----------



## tombo (Jul 8, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I disagree, Tombo.  There are far more prime weeks in "weeks" than there are in points.  FAR MORE!  Because RCI Weeks owners can see points resorts in weeks.  There are so many more choices in weeks than points, so far.  Maybe that will change and RCI will just let points owners have all of the point inventory, but I don't think so, because many owners in those resorts are weeks owners, not points owners.
> 
> Boca is always right.  RCI may not intentionally hurt owners who choose to exchange with their rotten company, but they sure do--and DID, just six weeks ago.  I am so bitter, having 5 weeks drop from exceptional to mediocre with one keystroke (or whatever they did).  I will never deposit anything into weeks again, unless I cannot sell my Val Chatelle and have to deposit those, and it will only be for the purpose of PFD.
> 
> Foxrun is getting bonus weeks for 2010 AGAIN, but my 2010 weeks are STUCK there in RCI, barely pulling a studio in Hawaii at the non-rated resorts.    I just confirmed two weeks at the Westin Ka'anapali and Westin Princeville, 2 bedrooms, with my 2008 weeks I deposited with II last year.



I agree that weeks has the most inventory because there are many more weeks owners than there are points owners (which I posted above). This is why I thought that RCI let points raid weeks inventory to give the limited number of points owners access to a lot more inventory than they actually deposit. However unless I am totally mistaken the points owners can exchange for weeks inventory, but us weeks owners can not exchange for points inventory. Am I wrong about that?


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jul 8, 2009)

*Maybe.  (I Don't Know For Sure.)*




tombo said:


> However unless I am totally mistaken the points owners can exchange for weeks inventory, but us weeks owners can not exchange for points inventory. Am I wrong about that?


When we traded our 2BR standard-grade red season timeshare in a far-off land overseas for a September week in a 3BR unit at HGVC Sea World, I am pretty sure the RCI web site showed a point-value chart for HGVC Sea World right there on the screen telling about the resort & showing pictures, etc. 

That could mean that HGVC Sea World is in RCI Points & we snagged it via RCI Weeks -- or not.  

I was not savvy enough then nor am I savvy enough now about the inner workings of RCI to know whether that was some kind of fluke on the 1 hand, or on the other hand a possible indication that, yes indeed, weeks can snag points.  

I was impressed at the time that the points value of the HGVC Sea World unit we snagged was in the low 6 figures.  Later, after we took the points plunge & started doing _Points For Deposit_ with our far-off overseas timeshare week, we discovered its points-equivalent value is on the low side of the mid- 5 figures.  

As a practical matter, I think that using the primest of the most in-demand timeshares (e.g., DVC) as illustrations of how the points-weeks interface is or is not working or is fair or unfair, etc., throws everybody off.  

I think a more useful real world picture emerges when we disregard the topmost & the humblest & focus on, say, the middle 80% of timeshares, weeks & points _mox nix._ 

I assume -- rightly or wrongly, who knows? -- that the Chief Of Staff & I are not that much dumber or cleverer than most of the other average walking-around timeshare owners out there.  So therefore, if we're able to figure out (as we do) how to get the system to work advantageously for us, then it surely can't be that much of a stretch to expect that others will be able to go & do likewise, & in fact to snag nicer trades than we get using humbler timeshares than ours as trade bait. 

That's what gives me major serious pause when the really savvy folks like Carolinian & tombo say the system is broken, unfair, unbalanced, distorted, tilted, illegal, immoral, & fattening.  

Shux, if that's how I found it via my own experience in using it, I would drop it like a hot rock.  I mean, we bought our outstanding Orlando timeshare (resale) for our own use, within the family.  All this extra bank & trade & points & _Instant Exchange_ & rent out & _Last Call_ stuff is fun but also nonessential & mostly beside the point.  

In short, we take what we like & leave the rest. 

Is this a great country or what ? 

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


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 8, 2009)

*If its wrong don't let it be right*



tombo said:


> However unless I am totally mistaken the points owners can exchange for weeks inventory, but us weeks owners can not exchange for points inventory. Am I wrong about that?



"Wrong" is too strong a word in this case. While weeks owners cannot directly look into the points deposits pool they do benefit as Points - especially PFD as well as the tempting high values assigned to some prime time deposits - brings in high value time that otherwise RCI isn't likely to get as a deposit. Some, but not all, gets placed into the weeks pool to make up for weeks removed by Points owners. Its a zero sum game (and boy, does the description "game" fit in this case) so when a so called raid occurs for a week at some point, and to the satisfaction of whatever accounting group they utilize to check/verify this process, RCI takes an equal (another artfully worded term) week from points to replace it. The problem, especially in weeks, is no one knows what the so-called value of any week is. It is subject to change (ask Cindy) and is never revealed as that is "proprietary" information that competitors can't know. 

In Points there IS a known value and thus it is far easier to make an informed decision regarding the value for YOU both on deposits and use.  Add in the flexibility of published values for adjusting your request to the exact size, time, resort you can use vs the take it all or leave it 7 day, fixed size of a week for the weeks place and hope system and it makes Points the obvious choice. Points also has the big advantage of locking in known deposits (once you sign up RCI knows that time will be placed into the pool for X years) making planning and availability better. In place and hope weeks there is zero guarantee any week will get put in. Finally the ability to custom tailor the use of your points means that Points members will reserve a 1 bedroom rather than a two or three if that's all they really need as they save points that way for other uses. In the weeks system once you take a trade 100% of your deposit is gone - no change back - so why take a 1 bedroom if a two or three (which you really don't need)  is sitting there for exactly the same "cost"? Week for week just isn't an efficient method to facilitate trades as the likelihood of exact matches in so many areas are so low. 

That's why developers are able to make convincing cases for people to pay more to get into points based systems vs a week for week type ownership - especially if they have any plans to trade use outside of the fixed resort ownership.  Fixed weeks can be great for use especially if its in a prime, high demand season but are not a good vehicle for easy and predicable trade(s). For that a good Points system works far better and can be adjusted to fit an individuals needs far easier than any weeks based system no matter how it is run.  The ability to get a fair and equal trade is far greater in Points vs weeks which often requires trade ups simply to get anything. That flaw was what made the "golden age" for those that figured it out, while leaving those that owned good times often on the short end. That isn't as likely to occur in Points and is a big reason why once exposed to that option people tend to take it even at additional cost.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 8, 2009)

I would say that most of the weeks inventory in RCI Points on the weeks side comes from PFD, and that is why there is rarely a Points resort there.  I haven't seen a points resort on the weeks side of Points ever, but others say they have, so I guess it's possible.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 8, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> ...  I haven't seen a points resort *on the weeks side of Points* ever, but others say they have, so I guess it's possible.


I might be misunderstanding you (and that is a big if for what follows), but ...

My understanding of how the computer system works is that if a resort is in Points (with some owners in Points, others in Weeks), the only thing that will show up for Points owners online are those units deposited by Points owners.  If a Weeks owner at that resort makes a deposit, that unit will not show up online in either the Points area (because it was not a Points deposit) nor as something within the Weeks system.  A Points owner can get such a unit (at the cost of what the Points value would be), but the only way to know of its existence is to talk to a VC.

That is the way that things worked several years ago.  Unless things have changed, you would never see a Points unit within the Weeks area online.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jul 8, 2009)

*Points Are Points.  But Are Weeks Likewise Weeks ?*




rickandcindy23 said:


> I haven't seen a points resort on the weeks side of Points ever, but others say they have, so I guess it's possible.


It never occurred to me that _The Weeks Side Of Points_ is any different from just plain _Weeks,_ but now that you mention it I suppose that's possible.  

This whole weeks-points thing is on the edge of becoming way too philosophical for me. 

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


----------



## Lisa P (Jul 8, 2009)

Jennie, it's been "conventional wisdom" to do this for a long, long time (deposit average stuff, use or rent out the cream).  Ask any DisBoard DVCer, any owner in Sanibel/Captiva or from the Manhattan Club.  An owner rental has always been easier to obtain (though more expensive) than trading in, with the exception of bulk spacebankings that we learned to seek.  And over the last 2 decades, many more people have bought into timesharing and many have learned this principle, aided by the internet's easy usage as a rental outlet.  Simultaneously, as the exchange companies have gotten proportionately less prime inventory, they've likely fielded more complaints from owners of prime weeks who cannot get comparable trades and they've both (RCI and II) had to try and close loopholes to trading up.

The timeshare industry has had a reputation since the early years of being a poor purchase and this view has been expressed by popular economic advisers even more, recently.  Buying exclusively to trade has been discouraged on timeshare forums and bulletin boards for a long time now.  And if we think think the resale value of timeshares has suffered, try selling a BOAT or any other sizable leisure item!  It's the economy.



Carol C said:


> Nothing in New York City this morning for Weeks members. I guess I could always drive in from Bushkill PA.


I don't recall there being any NYC availability, just sitting online most mornings, in RCI Weeks nor in II, 3 years ago, 5, 10 or more.  We may have gotten spoiled by occasional Sightings but that's not been the norm.



tombo said:


> The same TUGGERS who would never deposit their prime weeks expect to be able to trade for other people's prime weeks with the less than prime trader that they are more than happy to deposit.


And WHAT is the matter with this??!?       After all, TUG is all about getting the best we can with what we've got.  :whoopie:  Actually, I do agree - we've become quite spoiled, haven't we?    (speaking for myself)


tombo said:


> The huge number of great weeks were never there, TUGGERS were just knowledgable about how to work the system (buying SA weeks cheap to exchange for top inventory, sightings boards, knowing when bulk deposits were made, etc) and got a disproportinate amount of the great inventory.


Absolutely!


----------



## cotraveller (Jul 8, 2009)

Jennie said:


> Many of us *have* already changed our behavior. We *deposit our mediocre and/or junk weeks* with RCI, preferably through the PFD option in the RCI Points program, and use our *prime valuable weeks *ourselves, *or rent them for big $$$$ and then use the rental money to rent what we want directly from other owners*. I personally know so many people who are already doing this. More will surely follow as the quantity and quality of weeks offered through exchange decreases.





tombo said:


> How many people on TUG who payed $15,000 or more for DVC and $1500 or more in annual MF's would deposit their personal week in RCI hoping to get a trade they feel is equitable? *We are all knowledgable enough to out rent those type weeks for enough income to rent Maui or Aruba from another owner with enough money left over to cover some of our vacation expenses*





bnoble said:


> *As the potential return from renting increases, the value of exchange pales in comparison.*  Exchange was great when it was that or advertise in the Picayune Press.  Now, the value proposition is completely different.



If everyone is depositing their mediocre and/or junk weeks and using or renting their prime weeks why would anyone expect to get a prime week as an exchange?  Perhaps another behavior change will take place and people will deposit their prime weeks instead of renting them among themselves and then they would be available as exchanges for others who also deposit prime weeks.  

But with a profit driven mindset that is not likely to happen.  It's not just the companies that are profit driven, the general comments here seem to indicate that TS owners, at least many of those who frequent this site, also operate in that mode.  Get the maximum return for the minimum investment, whether it be in terms of cash or in terms of exchange.


----------



## Patri (Jul 8, 2009)

If the trend has to be that you buy where you want to go, and the general public understands that before purchasing, new sales will drop dramatically for the industry. Most people don't want to go the same place each year. Then they could just rent without the hassle of owning. The whole concept of 'time'  'sharing' changes and the sales folks won't have the spin to put into their pitches.
Of course, it is unlikely the general public will understand this picture and so will continue to fall for the line that they can buy anything and trade into anywhere.
But RCI is accelerating the downfall of timesharing as it was originally intended by changing its business model.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 8, 2009)

*Weeks proved flawed, points not well implemented. Cash might be king*



Patri said:


> If the trend has to be that you buy where you want to go, and the general public understands that before purchasing, new sales will drop dramatically for the industry. Most people don't want to go the same place each year. Then they could just rent without the hassle of owning. The whole concept of 'time'  'sharing' changes and the sales folks won't have the spin to put into their pitches.
> Of course, it is unlikely the general public will understand this picture and so will continue to fall for the line that they can buy anything and trade into anywhere.
> But RCI is accelerating the downfall of timesharing as it was originally intended by changing its business model.



That's why a good points system with plenty of internal trades may be the best choice for those that don't want to return "home" very often if ever. With plenty of resorts and the ability to get access - many times with a preference - to the weeks traders - the ability to know what you can trade for rather than place and hope is much greater in points. Add in that the best weeks get the most points so they are more likely to be deposited - again no place and hope but a guaranteed big payday in points - and its easy to see why a good points system is superior for constant trading rather than home resort use.

Timesharing as originally designed was to visit one resort for one wek year after year.  Still a great model if you can use it that way and one sure way to avoid the issues with the need to trade. The flawed system of trading a fixed week for another fixed week when so few are actually equal is what changed the business model. Points thankfully builds in the needed flexibility and corrects the value differences between times, unit sizes, resorts and locations with up front values anyone can understand. Only those who were taking advantage of the inequities of the weeks system seem to bemoan the rise of a much more sustainable model. Renting is another way to do it but requires much more effort and a return to a place (an ad) and hope type system rather than the known values of a points based operation. 

Cash is really the ultimate in points but there isn't as easy a method of making money on it so it hasn't caught on with the big boys. Unless they basically give away inventory to only profit themselves after the owners pay all the associated costs - hardly a method likely to sit well over the long term as we see here - they haven't built a workable system as all they want is up front money (usually to join the system) more than the ongoing fees. The whole industry needs a rework that doesn't seem to be coming anytime soon. For now points are the answer I see as best but I'd welcome something better. Week for week trading sure isn't it.


----------



## bnoble (Jul 8, 2009)

> Perhaps another behavior change will take place and people will deposit their prime weeks instead of renting them among themselves and then they would be available as exchanges for others who also deposit prime weeks.


Why would any prime week owner do this?  The person who is "first" gets nothing back, vs. the very reliable return of renting.

Don't fool yourself.  The horse is out of the barn.



> That's why a good points system with plenty of internal trades may be the best choice for those that don't want to return "home" very often if ever.


Precisely so.  For example, with Wyndham, I have several dozen "homes" to visit.  While it's not the iron-clad guarantee of a fixed week, reserving in Wyndham's system is much more reliable than depending on exchange.  At least, it has been in my experience.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jul 8, 2009)

*No Dog & Cat Timeshare Weeks.*




cotraveller said:


> Perhaps another behavior change will take place and people will deposit their prime weeks instead of renting them among themselves and then they would be available as exchanges for others who also deposit prime weeks.


One of the independent (non-RCI & non-I-I) timeshare exchange companies -- I forget which 1 -- supposedly only takes high-quality timeshare weeks & thus only offers high-quality timeshare weeks. 

How do you suppose that is working out ? 

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


----------



## John Cummings (Jul 9, 2009)

AwayWeGo said:


> One of the independent (non-RCI & non-I-I) timeshare exchange companies -- I forget which 1 -- supposedly only takes high-quality timeshare weeks & thus only offers high-quality timeshare weeks.
> 
> How do you suppose that is working out ?
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



You must be referring to San Francisco Exchange "SFX". It has worked out great for me. I have used them exclusively for 12+ years and have always received what we asked for. Prior to SFX, I used both II and RCI.

That is not to say that SFX works for everbody. As I am sure you are aware, there have been numerous threads about SFX both pro and con. One has to find out what works for them.


----------



## Carol C (Jul 13, 2009)

I thought I'd give it a week for RCI to loosen up some inventory for RCI Weeks dues-paying members who seek an exchange to Manhattan Club. Nothing there in inventory yet...not with my July 4th SoCalif week, anyway. I guess I could always take a resort in Atlantic City or Montauk, but my horse isn't doing too well and probably couldn't make the journey. :deadhorse:


----------

