# Don't understand RCI math



## nrkh12 (Feb 5, 2012)

I deposited a week with RCI 18 mo. before travel and they gave me 15 points. 
The next day I saw my week in the exchange inventory, if I wanted to book it, it would take 22 points.

How do they get to charge 22 points for a 15 point unit ? 
Or should I say how do they get to rip me off 7 points ?


----------



## cpnuser (Feb 6, 2012)

*Where are ALL of the shortdated weeks?*

Shortdated weeks are nearly non existant for  Hilton Head SC.  I still can't figure why RCI cut back on the shortdated weeks from 45 days to 30 days. Under points, the few listed at Hilton Head for February are way more than 7500 points. We were at Island Links the first 2 weeks of Dec., 2011.  We used weeks, not points. There were plenty of empty units.  When we were at Owners Club  in Jan., 2011,(used points) there were also plenty of empty units .  Do owners just not turn their weeks in to exchange at RCI?  Or does RCI just not make the units available to members doing searches? They certainly aren't renting them, because the units are empty. I realize these times are off season, but if the units are available, they should be listed on their site.  Any suggestions on how to see more 7500-9000 point weeks?


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 6, 2012)

nrkh12 said:


> I deposited a week with RCI 18 mo. before travel and they gave me 15 points.
> The next day I saw my week in the exchange inventory, if I wanted to book it, it would take 22 points.
> 
> How do they get to charge 22 points for a 15 point unit ?
> Or should I say how do they get to rip me off 7 points ?



This is the big con in Points Lite.  You cannot even trade back into your own unit.  This is nothing but flim flam, and one reason I avoid RCI for deposits and am letting my membership run out.

One can certainly expect that over time the value of a week would fluctuate from the ever changing forces of supply and demand.  That makes perfect sense.  But when at the same point in time they value a week at a significantly different number of points lite depending on whether it is a deposit or a week taken for an exchange is nothing but pure fraud.  In an honest system, the week would have the same value at the same point in time no matter which way it went.

And even more maddening, on the other side of the coin, there are resorts, largely in the overbuilt areas, where RCI consistently give more points lite as a deposit credit than they are charging for exchanges into the same week at the same point in time.  Some resorts are being systematically underpointed while others are being systematically overpointed.

Welcome to RCI's new numbers racket!!


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 6, 2012)

cpnuser said:


> Shortdated weeks are nearly non existant for  Hilton Head SC.  I still can't figure why RCI cut back on the shortdated weeks from 45 days to 30 days. Under points, the few listed at Hilton Head for February are way more than 7500 points. We were at Island Links the first 2 weeks of Dec., 2011.  We used weeks, not points. There were plenty of empty units.  When we were at Owners Club  in Jan., 2011,(used points) there were also plenty of empty units .  Do owners just not turn their weeks in to exchange at RCI?  Or does RCI just not make the units available to members doing searches? They certainly aren't renting them, because the units are empty. I realize these times are off season, but if the units are available, they should be listed on their site.  Any suggestions on how to see more 7500-9000 point weeks?



Look to RCI's various rentals-to-the-public outlets.  I suspect you will find them there.  That is par for the course these days with *R*ents *C*ondos* I*nstead


----------



## Carol C (Feb 6, 2012)

See below: Proof of RCI's rentals of the good stuff to the public for big bucks, while making same inventory UNAVAILABLE to DUES PAYING MEMBERS as exchanges for ANY amount of TPUs during peak summer travel season. I did an exact copy/paste from RCI's website, searching for Wyndhams on Edisto Island...searching for exchanges and extra vacations both at same time. Note...April 2012 vacation caqn be had by me as an exchange for 26 TPUs...then from June til Aug 24 2012 I as a DUES PAYING MEMBER can only RENT from RCI a Wyndham week at the beach on Edisto; no amount of my TPUs can be used for an EXCHANGE to same locale. RCI=Ripoff Crook Idiots! 


1 Bedroom     4 (2)  Full  Sun 08-Apr-2012  Sun 15-Apr-2012  Exchange Fee  26  

  1 Bedroom     4 (4)  Full  Sun 03-Jun-2012  Sun 10-Jun-2012  USD 917.99    
  1 Bedroom     4 (4)  Full  Sun 08-Jul-2012  Sun 15-Jul-2012  USD 1,097.99    
  1 Bedroom     4 (4)  Full  Sun 15-Jul-2012  Sun 22-Jul-2012  USD 1,097.99    
  1 Bedroom     4 (4)  Full  Sun 22-Jul-2012  Sun 29-Jul-2012  USD 1,097.99    
  1 Bedroom     4 (4)  Full  Sun 29-Jul-2012  Sun 05-Aug-2012  USD 1,097.99   

  1 Bedroom     4 (2)  Full  Sun 29-Jul-2012  Sun 05-Aug-2012  USD 1,097.99 

  1 Bedroom     4 (4)  Full  Sun 05-Aug-2012  Sun 12-Aug-2012  USD 1,097.99    

  1 Bedroom     4 (2)  Full  Fri 10-Aug-2012  Fri 17-Aug-2012  USD 1,097.99    
  1 Bedroom     4 (4)  Full  Sun 12-Aug-2012  Sun 19-Aug-2012  USD 1,097.99    

  2 Bedrooms     6 (6)  Full  Sun 12-Aug-2012  Sun 19-Aug-2012  USD 1,250.99    

  1 Bedroom     4 (2)  Full  Fri 17-Aug-2012  Fri 24-Aug-2012  USD 1,097.99    
  2 Bedrooms     6 (6)  Full  Fri 17-Aug-2012  Fri 24-Aug-2012  USD 1,250.99    

  1 Bedroom     4 (2)  Full  Sun 19-Aug-2012  Sun 26-Aug-2012  USD 1,097.99  

  1 Bedroom     4 (4)  Full  Sun 19-Aug-2012  Sun 26-Aug-2012  USD 1,097.99   

  2 Bedrooms     8 (8)  Full  Sun 19-Aug-2012  Sun 26-Aug-2012  USD 1,250.99   

  2 Bedrooms     8 (4)  Full  Sun 19-Aug-2012  Sun 26-Aug-2012  USD 1,250.99   

  2 Bedrooms     6 (6)  Full  Sun 19-Aug-2012  Sun 26-Aug-2012  USD 1,250.99   

1 Bedroom     4 (2)  Full  Fri 24-Aug-2012  Fri 31-Aug-2012  Exchange Fee  22  

  2 Bedrooms     8 (4)  Full  Fri 24-Aug-2012  Fri 31-Aug-2012  Exchange Fee -OR- USD 1,043.99  24


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Feb 6, 2012)

Those weeks you listed aren't available to the public...Only RCI members, while they do rent weeks to the public so they don't lose hundreds of thousands of dollars on weeks that wouldn't otherwise be used...

The weeks you listed aren't those


----------



## Carol C (Feb 6, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Those weeks you listed aren't available to the public...Only RCI members, while they do rent weeks to the public so they don't lose hundreds of thousands of dollars on weeks that wouldn't otherwise be used...
> 
> The weeks you listed aren't those



How do you know? Did you have time today to research these weeks on RCI's various rental scheme sites, like Endless Vacations, AFVC, GETOP, etc?


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 6, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Those weeks you listed aren't available to the public...Only RCI members, while they do rent weeks to the public so they don't lose hundreds of thousands of dollars on weeks that wouldn't otherwise be used...
> 
> The weeks you listed aren't those



So, Ride, you attack HOA's as crooked but you think RCI and PCC's are honest?

This same pattern that Carol points out repeats too many places when it comes to RCI.

And you think these summer weeks would otherwise not be used????? Have you been smoking something other than a tobacco product?


----------



## stevedmatt (Feb 6, 2012)

I never really looked at this before, but I have an HHI week in August that I can't use and just checked the deposit points credit. I can get 23 points maximum for this week for depositing. I decided to see if a week was available to exchange into that same week and unit size. Yes! But it would cost me 47 points! That's sick!


----------



## Twinkstarr (Feb 6, 2012)

stevedmatt said:


> I never really looked at this before, but I have an HHI week in August that I can't use and just checked the deposit points credit. I can get 23 points maximum for this week for depositing. I decided to see if a week was available to exchange into that same week and unit size. Yes! But it would cost me 47 points! That's sick!



That's worse than my MI summer week, I get 27 and it costs 35 to trade into.


----------



## melschey (Feb 6, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> So, Ride, you attack HOA's as crooked but you think RCI and PCC's are honest?
> 
> This same pattern that Carol points out repeats too many places when it comes to RCI.
> 
> And you think these summer weeks would otherwise not be used????? Have you been smoking something other than a tobacco product?



Exactly why we didn't renew our RCI (Rent a Condo International) membership.


----------



## stevedmatt (Feb 7, 2012)

Thank TUG for the rental portal. Listed it on Redweek also. RCI will never see my HHI weeks.

Also just realized it can be rented for $1268.99 through an extra vacation.


----------



## nrkh12 (Feb 9, 2012)

I called RCI and asked about the difference in points. They said it was due to an increase in demand. I questioned how the demand went up so much in just 24 hours. They didn't have an answer. 
I then asked if I took my week back and re-deposited it if they would give me the 22 points it's now worth. 
They said no - I'd still only get the 15 points, or maybe less.  When I asked why, they said it was a complicated formula that operates the exchange system and told me to read my Disclosure Guide if I have any more questions......good bye.


----------



## strandlover (Feb 10, 2012)

What happens if your unit deposited was booked at a higher TPU level than was deposited?

I thought you always got the upward adjustment if it was booked at a higher value.  That's the only thing I can think of when I once got a TPU adjustment of +12


----------



## Timeshare Von (Feb 10, 2012)

I'm not defending their practices on this because I agree it stinks . . . but . . .

I think there may be some law of averages in play here as they need to get "on average" what they are betting they will get for your week.  If they give you 15 TPU for it, there is a good possibility that they may not be able to trade it out until much later, at a lower value.

They set the initial trading value at 22 "now" . . . knowing that it may only fetch 8 later in the year.

Who knows for sure?


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 10, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> This is the big con in Points Lite.  You cannot even trade back into your own unit.  This is nothing but flim flam, and one reason I avoid RCI for deposits and am letting my membership run out.



As this has been posted now since around 2005 or so ("and am letting my membership run out.") you must have had one of the LONGEST remaining times in RCI known to mankind.  

On the other hand I agree that unless you use the discounted - not inflated - rentals offered by RCI there is ZERO reason now to be a "member" of that organization.  It is nearly criminal that they can rent for hundreds or thousands inventory they got for free or were even paid a membership fee to take and not one cent of that goes to the owner who pays for the timeshare!  Why would anyone give them a week under these self-serving "rules"?


----------



## stevedmatt (Feb 10, 2012)

Timeshare Von said:


> I'm not defending their practices on this because I agree it stinks . . . but . . .
> 
> I think there may be some law of averages in play here as they need to get "on average" what they are betting they will get for your week.  If they give you 15 TPU for it, there is a good possibility that they may not be able to trade it out until much later, at a lower value.
> 
> ...



While I understand your premise, why would they try to get 30-40+ points now if they think they may have to settle for 8? Offer it for what you gave in TPU, get a quick trade and make your $199. If anything, they should be offering more TPU for deposit just to get the week.


----------



## blueparrot (Feb 11, 2012)

From what I see, RCI does not do this in RCI Points.  There the point value stays the same, and it is the same whether depositing or seeking an exchange.  Why is it different in RCI Weeks?


----------



## Timeshare Von (Feb 11, 2012)

stevedmatt said:


> While I understand your premise, why would they try to get 30-40+ points now if they think they may have to settle for 8? Offer it for what you gave in TPU, get a quick trade and make your $199. If anything, they should be offering more TPU for deposit just to get the week.



I think it's all about supply & demand and for some places, having your exchange confirmed ASAP even at a higher rate is reason enough to use more TPU.

I've seen some of that with researching UK & Ireland trades.  Ireland is especially hard to get, so I was more than happy to use 33 TPU to get a week more than 18 months out.  That same week will go for a fraction of that, if it happens to be still available now or even closure to the check-in date.

Hawaii is really skewed when you look at trades with a long lead time, and those last minute.  A Hawaii week that you can get "next week" is like 4-7, and yet I'm betting it was probably over 20 or maybe even 30 a year ago.

I don't  know for sure, though and have no factual info to base my theory on . . . just an observation and trying to figure it out myself.


----------



## Timeshare Von (Feb 11, 2012)

blueparrot said:


> From what I see, RCI does not do this in RCI Points.  There the point value stays the same, and it is the same whether depositing or seeking an exchange.  Why is it different in RCI Weeks?



Admittedly I know little to nothing about RCI points, but when you buy them aren't they at that point assessed their value in the RCI system?

If so, the fact that weeks have no "RCI" value, allows them (RCI) to assign a value to them on whatever arbitrary methodology they wish and change it as they deem beneficial (to RCI).


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Feb 11, 2012)

Isn't this a VERY common practice in all markets?  A different Buy rate then Sell rate....Go to 7/11 and ask them how much they will buy a 2ltr bottle of soda from you for...then look on the shelves and see how much they are selling them for...any gold or precious metal exchange will be the same thing...

The thing is there isn't just ONE Supply/Demand curve, there is the Supply/Demand Curve for the Buy rate and a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Supply/Demand curve for the Sell rate

I don't get why you guys see this as an evil thing...its basicly a fundamental value of capitalism...You guys ARE capitalists, right?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Feb 11, 2012)

I have seen ski weeks in Colorado change drastically over a year's time.  For example, a ski week 51 at my home resort is now valued at 49 for 2013, but for 2011 several months ago, that same week was 59 points.  The same value is there for 2012 as 2013 currently, but I expect it to change.  I won't deposit my 2013 week until I see the increase.  

There has always been a smart time to deposit.  It's no secret now, but it was back then.  Watch for trends.  

I send new Points Lite values frequently to our owners via the newsletter at Val Chatelle.  I want them informed as to what values they can get at any given time for their weeks.


----------



## Tia (Feb 11, 2012)

RCI math is simple -

1 for you and 3 for RCI

2 for you and 6 for RCI

so on and so forth........


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 11, 2012)

Tia said:


> RCI math is simple -
> 
> 1 for you and 3 for RCI
> 
> ...



There should be a song written for that. Maybe they could call it "TaxmanRciman".  

Let me tell you how trades will be
One blue for you 9 reds for me
If 10 percent appears too small
Just know that we can rent them all
Rciman
If you have a large we'll give you small
If you want some sun there's none at all
In March we have some sand and surf
In summertime we've got no worth
If the fee's too high we just don't care
We make our cash - go you know where
Cause we're Rciman Yeah Rciman
And you're depositing for no one but me

RIP George Harrison.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Feb 11, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> So, Ride, you attack HOA's as crooked but you think RCI and PCC's are honest?



Now, Honest i wouldn't say...But if we are weighing things on a scale of 'lesser of the two evils' i would definately consider PCC's and RCI less evil them HOA/POA/BOD's


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 11, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Now, Honest i wouldn't say...But if we are weighing things on a scale of 'lesser of the two evils' i would definately consider PCC's and RCI less evil them HOA/POA/BOD's



Seems to broad an assumption as those groups cover everything from what I would deem self centered Developer controlled resorts/Associations to the most mom & pop style tiny resort operation.  Over that group there will be outstanding, owner controlled and operated Associations and those that deserve to be ripped apart. To simply make a blanket statement that all are bad and/or corrupt is way off the mark. That makes all observations by this poster questionable.  You have to look at each case individually as, unlike RCI or the PCC's they are each a case study all their own.  One size does not fit all.


----------



## ampaholic (Feb 11, 2012)

timeos2 said:


> That makes all observations by this poster questionable.



I think that is uncalled for ... Ride's opinion (or "observation") is as welcome here as yours (or mine) is.

correct?


----------



## Timeshare Von (Feb 11, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Now, Honest i wouldn't say...But if we are weighing things on a scale of 'lesser of the two evils' i would definately consider PCC's and RCI less evil them HOA/POA/BOD's



WOW - how can you say that?  Most HOA/POA/BODs are representative of individual owners like us.  Unfortunately, like many volunteer boards, they are in over their skies in terms of the skills and knowledge to run a business and bad decisions are made.  Trust me, I've worked for enough of them to see it, experience it and be victim of it first hand.

PCCs and RCI are corporations with corporate motives (profits) that often by definition can be at odds with those they do business with.

I would list them least offensive (evil) to worst as:

* HOA/POA/BODs
* RCI (and ALL exchange companies)
* PCCs


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 11, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> I think that is uncalled for ... Ride's opinion (or "observation") is as welcome here as yours (or mine) is.
> 
> correct?



It is very welcome - it helps create the conversation here. That doesn't mean it's not a questionable stance, does it? 

Like the "koolaid" drinker, what is a now common term to refer to those that tend to blindly subscribe to a company or leaders line. Having a questionable opinion or being described as a koolaid drinker is a mild (IMO) rebuke of that position and in no way a personal attack.  Of course they could be right, but not in my opinion.  If that makes my ideas questionable or me a koolaid drinker so be it.  It doesn't bother me in the least.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Feb 11, 2012)

timeos2 said:


> You have to look at each case individually as, unlike RCI or the PCC's they are each a case study all their own.  One size does not fit all.



To dismiss my generalization that all POA/HOA/BOD's are evil then to make your own generalizations about PCC's seems a bit, well, one sided


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Feb 11, 2012)

This thread isn't supposed to be about HOA BOD's.  I am getting cranky now.  

I am really tired of Ride's lumping all BOD's together as evil, since I work hard on a BOD of a very small Colorado resort, which has been out of developer control for nearly 30 years.  I used to be on another BOD in Colorado, which was larger, but was out of developer control for that many years, too.  Owners have my phone and email address, and it's in every single newsletter that goes out.  

What would be your ideal BOD, Ride?  You own timeshare.  Imagine the best BOD possible.  Someone has to hire/ fire the management company and make sure they do their job for owners.  The management company must have some concern they could be fired, so who is going to do that? 

Insulting people on these threads is not fair, Ride, and you stir the pot way too much.  You need to find a different hobby and not insult those of us who help keep resorts running and take very little compensation for doing it.  

Ironically, you now own resorts managed and controlled completely by developers.  What made you think those two were different, and why in the world would you even buy timeshare, Ride, let alone two that are run by the worst companies imaginable.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Feb 11, 2012)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Insulting people on these threads is not fair, Ride, and you stir the pot way too much.  You need to find a different hobby and not insult those of us who help keep resorts running and take very little compensation for doing it.



Please don't take it personally Cindy, i also insult the Apple company on other forums, when i do that it is in no way meant as an insult towards anyone that works for apple, just the company in general....When i speak of HOA/POA/BOD's its not the people but what is or in most cases is not being accomplished by those HOA/POA/BOD's

Others have insulted Wyndham, as an owner of Wyndham i do not take those insults personally...



> What would be your ideal BOD, Ride? You own timeshare. Imagine the best BOD possible.



honestly, i don't have a problem with developer controlled resorts, they are no better or worse then owner run, heck, places like Marriott, Disney and the Four seasons aren't worse because of it...i think a developer controlled resort maybe even run better, they care a bit more about the bottom end then some of the HOA/POA/BOD's i've seen and have the experience to know how to make the money work for everyone

The Ideal HOA/POA/BOD would consist of people who are able to deal with what is required to maintain and raise the value of the resort...Some with several years in Construction to control repairs and upgrades, A person with several years running a Landscaping and Maintenance to keep an eye on the grounds, a highly skilled accountant to invest and grow the profits, and yes, someone who has experience selling and renting Timeshare to deal with the Deedbacks

But even without those, at the very least, there needs to be someone on EVERY board that has experience selling and renting timeshares...there is no excuse for 20%+ of MF's being Weeks unowned or used


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 11, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> To dismiss my generalization that all POA/HOA/BOD's are evil then to make your own generalizations about PCC's seems a bit, well, one sided



Let the facts speak and the generalization on PCC's sticks but easily slides off the HOA/POA/BOD groups.  Unlike the HOA's PCC's are one of a kind operation and no known exceptions to the lies, unreliability and excessive costs they all exhibit have ever been verified.   One group (HOA's, etc) MAY be corrupt in a specific case or two while ALL PCC's are at the very least less than upfront about how they operate and what they plan after you pay the outrageous fees they require.  Truly apples and oranges comparison.


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 11, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> The Ideal HOA/POA/BOD would consist of people who are able to deal with what is required to maintain and raise the value of the resort...Some with several years in Construction to control repairs and upgrades, A person with several years running a Landscaping and Maintenance to keep an eye on the grounds, a highly skilled accountant to invest and grow the profits, and yes, someone who has experience selling and renting Timeshare to deal with the Deedbacks
> 
> But even without those, at the very least, there needs to be someone on EVERY board that has experience selling and renting timeshares...there is no excuse for 20%+ of MF's being Weeks unowned or used



Those exist so how can you make a blanket statement that "all" are corrupt, etc?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Feb 11, 2012)

> The Ideal HOA/POA/BOD would consist of people who are able to deal with what is required to maintain and raise the value of the resort...Some with several years in Construction to control repairs and upgrades, A person with several years running a Landscaping and Maintenance to keep an eye on the grounds, a highly skilled accountant to invest and grow the profits, and yes, someone who has experience selling and renting Timeshare to deal with the Deedbacks
> 
> But even without those, at the very least, there needs to be someone on EVERY board that has experience selling and renting timeshares...there is no excuse for 20%+ of MF's being Weeks unowned or used


You are describing a management company!  The BOD should be owners who have a personal stake in the resort and make sure the management company can provide all of those things.  

The BOD should only be reimbursed travel expenses to get to/ from meetings, and many meetings should take place via telephone conference to save owners money.  

I want people who love the resort and want to keep it maintained, both for my use, and to uphold trading value.  I am the person on the board who provides newsletters to owners, which keeps owners informed of the timeshare trends, like the new RCI weeks system, which has been great for the owners at my home resort.

The BOD needs to consider the value the owners get compared to the fees they pay.  We do well at Val Chatelle because the units are maintained, but not fancy, and we have things others don't have, like heated garages and hot tubs on every deck.  

It's a different timeshare experience because we have no clubhouse with community pool.  It's a ski resort in Summit County with lots of cold weather and snow.  The hot tub is just what the doctor ordered for sore muscles after trudging around her skis and boots.  Our fees are lower for blue weeks than red weeks, so the blue week owners don't feel they are holding up the value of the resort for skiers.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Feb 11, 2012)

rickandcindy23 said:


> You are describing a management company!  The BOD should be owners who have a personal stake in the resort and make sure the management company can provide all of those things.



IMO, and obviously this is just my opinion...A HOA/POA/BOD should have the experience and know how to keep the management company in line...i may have misspoke with my ideal HOA/POA/BOD, i think the Ideal would be no HOA/POA/BOD 100% transparency to 100% of owners, everything should be voted on by every owner...Sure, 85% will never respond to the letter for a vote...But those 15% that do will be a larger number then the 6-15 members of an HOA/POA/BOD and have a more diverse education/training/experience level...With all the owners weighing in on each topic, the amount of experience/training/education is nearly endless

Democracies aren't perfect, but they're the best we've got right now, you guys can see what the happens with a Republic, does your state representative REALLY represent you?  Its the same thing with an HOA/POA/BOD


----------



## ronparise (Feb 11, 2012)

Wow...I almost skipped this thread

This is exactly the kind of thread I like best....a simple question with not so simple an answer, lots of tangential discussion and opinion, where cranky prevails

The answer to the ops question is simple and Ride hit it right on the nose...buy low and sell high...actually I think the formula is more complex than that..I thing they pay as little as they can get away with and charge as much as they can


----------



## Timeshare Von (Feb 11, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> IMO, and obviously this is just my opinion...A HOA/POA/BOD should have the experience and know how to keep the management company in line...i may have misspoke with my ideal HOA/POA/BOD, i think the Ideal would be no HOA/POA/BOD 100% transparency to 100% of owners, everything should be voted on by every owner...Sure, 85% will never respond to the letter for a vote...But those 15% that do will be a larger number then the 6-15 members of an HOA/POA/BOD and have a more diverse education/training/experience level...With all the owners weighing in on each topic, the amount of experience/training/education is nearly endless
> 
> Democracies aren't perfect, but they're the best we've got right now, you guys can see what the happens with a Republic, does your state representative REALLY represent you?  Its the same thing with an HOA/POA/BOD



Ride I must say your vision for how a volunteer board of directors with an employed management company could not be further from the best practices of how governance and operations should be handled.

Boards are elected by the members so that more nimble and higher level decisions can be made in a timely manner.  Yes, members should vote on such things as budget but most of the day-to-day should not be necessarily decided by membership.

When you speak of having a board to keep the management company in line, that sounds a lot like micromanagement to me.  The board has the responsibility (legal/fiduciary) to hire and provide general oversight on the management company but not be meddlesome in the day-to-day of the laundry list of activities you listed in another response.

The exception to this would be if the organization is too small (financially) to afford a management company and it is a volunteer operated association.  Then yes, you need to have a lot of technical experience in the board so that key operational areas are performed at a high level.

I agree with you on transparency, which is something many volunteer boards struggle with.  I've had to education board chairs/presidents about some of the legal and regulatory responsibilities in this area, only to have them say "Sorry I don't agree.  We will not release our tax returns to anyone."  (Such is an example of a volunteer out over his skies!!!  And a complaint filing with the IRS and significant fines to follow.)

The most important thing is that one size does not fit all so how one POA/HOA operates may or may not work for another group.  But to throw them all into the "they're evil" bucket is just not correct.

p.s.  Somewhere in this thread it was mentioned that the POA/HOA should be responsible for improving the value of the timeshare.  I don't see how that is remotely possible, when it isn't possible to retain the "value" given the prices paid and ultimately the amount of "value" you might see in resale.


----------



## Timeshare Von (Feb 11, 2012)

ronparise said:


> Wow...I almost skipped this thread
> 
> This is exactly the kind of thread I like best....a simple question with not so simple an answer, lots of tangential discussion and opinion, where cranky prevails
> 
> The answer to the ops question is simple and Ride hit it right on the nose...buy low and sell high...actually I think the formula is more complex than that..I thing they pay as little as they can get away with and charge as much as they can



I don't think I saw this so much as crankiness but an outright hijack.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 11, 2012)

High values for resorts where there is always a glut of inventory versus reduced value for resorts that are hard to get any time of the year and deposits are taken for exchanges as soon as they hit the bank for much of the year means that RCI is turning supply and demand on its head, and that is a big part of the problem.




Timeshare Von said:


> I think it's all about supply & demand and for some places, having your exchange confirmed ASAP even at a higher rate is reason enough to use more TPU.
> 
> I've seen some of that with researching UK & Ireland trades.  Ireland is especially hard to get, so I was more than happy to use 33 TPU to get a week more than 18 months out.  That same week will go for a fraction of that, if it happens to be still available now or even closure to the check-in date.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 11, 2012)

An exchange company is far different than a retail business, and you are comparing apples and oranges.

A retail business buys at one price and sells at another and the difference is their gross profit.  They do not charge you a service charge for shopping in their store.

An exchange company is a third party facilitator of exchanges and charges a hefty service charge (exchange fee) for doing so.  To double dip and also charge a substantial differential in trading power is just outrageous.

Then there are the resorts, mostly in overbuilt areas that are overpointed.  Why, when there is usually a glut on the market of such weeks, should those weeks be subsidiaed by being given more trading power for a deposit than it takes to trade in?

Something is very seriously rotten in the state of RCI.




Ridewithme38 said:


> Isn't this a VERY common practice in all markets?  A different Buy rate then Sell rate....Go to 7/11 and ask them how much they will buy a 2ltr bottle of soda from you for...then look on the shelves and see how much they are selling them for...any gold or precious metal exchange will be the same thing...
> 
> The thing is there isn't just ONE Supply/Demand curve, there is the Supply/Demand Curve for the Buy rate and a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Supply/Demand curve for the Sell rate
> 
> I don't get why you guys see this as an evil thing...its basicly a fundamental value of capitalism...You guys ARE capitalists, right?


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Feb 12, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> A retail business buys at one price and sells at another and the difference is their gross profit.  They do not charge you a service charge for shopping in their store.
> An exchange company is a third party facilitator of exchanges and charges a hefty service charge (exchange fee) for doing so.  To double dip and also charge a substantial differential in trading power is just outrageous.



There are MANY MANY 'Club' type store in america that charge a 'service' or 'membership' charge to shop there...they also have a separate buy and sell rate...Look at Concerts, Clubs, Stadiums, they all charge you for entrance and then use a different buy/sell rate for products once you are inside....This is just how the market works her in America Caroline, i think your European or something right? Capitalism is a whole different system then you maybe used to



Carolinian said:


> Then there are the resorts, mostly in overbuilt areas that are overpointed.  Why, when there is usually a glut on the market of such weeks, should those weeks be subsidiaed by being given more trading power for a deposit than it takes to trade in?



I think 'overbuilt' is an improperly used term, if an area is overbuilt the resorts wouldn't be able to sustain enough rentals/owners to keep from going out of business, the market would correct itself, the resorts not popular would close and it would no longer be an over built area...Another Capitalistic priciple, i think there maybe a difference in understanding between countries with this...So i don't agree with that term...i'll agree that there are areas that have ALOT of TS availability....BUT, the reason they are able to have that large availability and still stay in business IS that they are in places people REALLY REALLY want to go to...These places have high trading power for that EXACT reason...they are popular...and the large amounts of resorts in that area that are able to maintain a profit are PROOF of that


----------



## Timeshare Von (Feb 12, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> <<snipped>>
> 
> I think 'overbuilt' is an improperly used term, if an area is overbuilt the resorts wouldn't be able to sustain enough rentals/owners to keep from going out of business, the market would correct itself, the resorts not popular would close and it would no longer be an over built area...



Not necessarily so . . . Orlando and Williamsburg ARE overbuilt.  That is why you can just about always find rentals for less than the MFs.

The thing that keeps/sustains the resorts is the fact that they have their money up front with the high sales prices . . . and the POA/HOA have the ability to charge as they must in terms of MFs and SAs.  Sure some are adversely affected as more and more people are walking away and defaulting, but they still have limited recourse in an attempt to recoup their losses.  Until the economy absolutely bottoms out and people in mass, walk away from a TS resort and their obligations, I don't see any of them "going out of business".

Do you have any idea what it would take for a timeshare resort to "close"?  That comment to me is naive.  Interesting thought, however.


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 12, 2012)

> .i'll agree that there are areas that have ALOT of TS  availability....BUT, the reason they are able to have that large  availability and still stay in business IS that they are in places  people REALLY REALLY want to go to...These places have high trading  power for that EXACT reason...they are popular...and the large amounts  of resorts in that area that are able to maintain a profit are PROOF of  that


OMG! I actually tend to agree with Ride! There is a reason why some areas have SO many resorts. people want to GO THERE!  Many people=many resorts. What a concept.  Why are there only a few in other areas? Because demand is so limited that they couldn't survive. So yes, the few that exist do get high utilization (demand) but that's only because there are only say 100 units. If there were 300 or 500 then THOSE areas would be "overbuilt" by that theory as the deposits would far exceed the demand. 

There are other factors of course. Like high costs in urban areas so although demand would be great the costs to build, sell & maintain the resorts would be too high. Lack of available land can be a reason as well. So as usual one size doesn't fit all cases but there is a base theory in there (timeshare users want to go to some areas and not as many to other areas) that is a basic truth. 

Wow. I didn't think I'd see the day but I have. Of course there are some that won't agree. That's what keep the threads alive and interesting.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Feb 12, 2012)

Timeshare Von said:


> Not necessarily so . . . Orlando and Williamsburg ARE overbuilt.  That is why you can just about always find rentals for less than the MFs.
> 
> The thing that keeps/sustains the resorts is the fact that they have their money up front with the high sales prices . . . and the POA/HOA have the ability to charge as they must in terms of MFs and SAs.  Sure some are adversely affected as more and more people are walking away and defaulting, but they still have limited recourse in an attempt to recoup their losses.  Until the economy absolutely bottoms out and people in mass, walk away from a TS resort and their obligations, I don't see any of them "going out of business".
> 
> Do you have any idea what it would take for a timeshare resort to "close"?  That comment to me is naive.  Interesting thought, however.



I thought MF's keep/sustain the resorts, and the sales are just for the developers...even so, in a sold out resort, or one of the thousands not under developer control...the sales money wouldn't be an issue...the HOA/POA/BOD are limited with what they can charge...there is a bell curve with all things like that...once they go beyond the top of the bell curve, people will start RUNNING away, no matter the consequences...I really do believe it is impossible to have an overbuilt area...you can have an area built to peak demand, but overbuilt, there is no way the market can sustain that...it just doesn't work with Capitalism

unless you are saying Timeshares work outside of Capitalism? Its an Interesting thought, what market dynamic would you say defines the timesharing relationship?


----------



## e.bram (Feb 12, 2012)

Ride is right, Capitalism will out. TSes in overbuilt seasonal areas will eventually go under as people age and die(credit reports can't hurt)and no one will take their place. However RCI will take advantage of the situation just like the execs(and union execs) ,in many companies(GM, Xler, Kodak etc) that have gone belly up, have done quit well for themselves.


----------



## Beefnot (Feb 12, 2012)

I have seen nowhere in this thread or elsewhere that substantiates Ride's assertion that HOAs and BODs are evil. A lot of other labels perhaps, but not evil.  As for his comments on capitalism and RCI's bid-ask spread, agreed.


----------



## ampaholic (Feb 12, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> ...I really do believe it is impossible to have an overbuilt area...you can have an area built to peak demand, but overbuilt, there is no way the market can sustain that...it just doesn't work with Capitalism
> 
> unless you are saying Timeshares work outside of Capitalism? Its an Interesting thought, what market dynamic would you say defines the timesharing relationship?



Carolinian *partially* answered your theory ...



Carolinian said:


> An exchange company is far different than a retail business, and you are comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> A retail business buys at one price and sells at another and the difference is their gross profit.  They do not charge you a service charge for shopping in their store.
> 
> ...



RCI first creates a "semi-captive" relationship by insinuating itself with the HOA/BOD to become the "default" trading facilitator. Then RCI charges a "membership fee" to individual timeshare owners to access the "playing field"
And then they charge a transaction fee to "take out" an exchange and apparently they also covertly charge a "skim TPU's fee" to "deposit".

And then they steal some prime weeks to rent out.

*They nick your wallet 5 times - no wonder they are flourishing:*

1. They influence the market value of your timeshare - often for the worse.
2. A direct charge - membership fee.
3. A covert charge - "TPU" or Points "*skimming*" - the variation from the in and out charge of each system.
4. They then divert the very best deposits into their rental program.
5. They charge members an exchange fee to fight over the left overs.

The bottom line with RCI is the old adage: *Don't be jealous because I'm successful - It only shows you wish you had thought of it first.*


----------



## Beefnot (Feb 12, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> Carolinian *partially* answered your theory ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Touché. Very fair points. I'm sure II has its issues, but RCI seems extra shady. I will stick with II or the independents.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Feb 12, 2012)

I haven't really seen any evidence of a skim...just the difference between what the company RCI pays in TPU's for a Week and what they Sell in TPU's for a week....this is a common thing in almost all companies, even the subscription big box stores like BJ's, Costco, etc. who also seem to have deals with companies so they don't sell to other big box store, charge a 'membership fee' 

Now as for offering weeks that aren't renting internally to the average joe off the street....i'm not a fan of that practice really, but it makes sense that if we don't want it, they wouldn't want to throw away good money, so to speak


----------



## Beefnot (Feb 12, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> I haven't really seen any evidence of a skim...just the difference between what the company RCI pays in TPU's for a Week and what they Sell in TPU's for a week....this is a common thing in almost all companies, even the subscription big box stores like BJ's, Costco, etc. who also seem to have deals with companies so they don't sell to other big box store, charge a 'membership fee'
> 
> Now as for offering weeks that aren't renting internally to the average joe off the street....i'm not a fan of that practice really, but it makes sense that if we don't want it, they wouldn't want to throw away good money, so to speak



That is an explicit skim when they are (1) charging a membership fee, (2) collecting an exchange fee and (2) establishing a bid-ask spread. One or two of the three, perhaps not a skim, but all three is definitely a skim. Add to that pulling inventory that would otherwise have demand for exchange, to rent instead, and it makes me wonder if the CEO's last name isn't Soprano.


----------



## ronparise (Feb 12, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> wonder if the CEO's last name isn't Soprano.



not Soprano...Wyndham


----------



## ampaholic (Feb 12, 2012)

ronparise said:


> not Soprano...Wyndham



Not Soprano or Wyndham (FYI a "made up" name) but ... Geoffrey A. Ballotti

A +1 to Beefnot ... it does end in a vowel


----------



## Beefnot (Feb 12, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> Not Soprano or Wyndham (FYI a "made up" name) but ... Geoffrey A. Ballotti
> 
> A +1 to Beefnot ... it does end in a vowel



Wow. And now it all makes sense....


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Feb 12, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> Not Soprano or Wyndham (FYI a "made up" name) but ... Geoffrey A. Ballotti
> 
> A +1 to Beefnot ... it does end in a vowel



Hey! Wait my name ends in a vowel, that doesn't mean I......Well, i guess, nevermind


----------



## hypnotiq (Feb 12, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Hey! Wait my name ends in a vowel, that doesn't mean I......Well, i guess, nevermind



Oh sh*t, so does mine...Ill just shut up now. :ignore:


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 12, 2012)

Well, Little Red Riding Hood, as you know from previous threads, I am not a European but an American expat working in Europe.  My wife, on the other hand, is a citizen of three countries, two of which are in Europe, so you could count her as both.  Indeed, my user name refers to the fact that I am from North Carolina.

You are relatively new to timesharing and to these boards, so I will excuse your lack of knowledge as to what it means to be overbuilt in timeshare.  Most informed Tuggers have been well aware of that subject and its meaning for the decade plus that I have been involved with these boards.  When I first signed up for TUG, one of the main timeshare gurus active on these boards was Fletch, and he frequently commented on the overbuilt areas, and it has been that way since.

As to supply and demand, what you should realize is that a resort or resort area with more demand than supply has a favorable supply / demand curve and therefore should have higher trade power in an honest system.  On the other hand, a resort or resort area with more supply than demand has an unfavorable supply /demand curve and thus should have lower trade power in a fair system.  It is easy to look at all availible weeks in the RCI system to see which is which.  The key is the totality of demand from all sources versus the totality of supply in the system.  That is a key element of free market capitalism.  When there is price fixing, that is NOT a free market approach.

Then there are the subsidies where RCI is constantly ''buying'' for more than it is ''selling'' for, i.e. giving more points lite for deposits than they charge to trade into the same week.  Those subsidies are inconsistent with a free market. And those subsidies from RCI are indeed what artificially sustains the overbuilt areas in timesharing.




Ridewithme38 said:


> There are MANY MANY 'Club' type store in america that charge a 'service' or 'membership' charge to shop there...they also have a separate buy and sell rate...Look at Concerts, Clubs, Stadiums, they all charge you for entrance and then use a different buy/sell rate for products once you are inside....This is just how the market works her in America Caroline, i think your European or something right? Capitalism is a whole different system then you maybe used to
> 
> 
> 
> I think 'overbuilt' is an improperly used term, if an area is overbuilt the resorts wouldn't be able to sustain enough rentals/owners to keep from going out of business, the market would correct itself, the resorts not popular would close and it would no longer be an over built area...Another Capitalistic priciple, i think there maybe a difference in understanding between countries with this...So i don't agree with that term...i'll agree that there are areas that have ALOT of TS availability....BUT, the reason they are able to have that large availability and still stay in business IS that they are in places people REALLY REALLY want to go to...These places have high trading power for that EXACT reason...they are popular...and the large amounts of resorts in that area that are able to maintain a profit are PROOF of that


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 12, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> That is an explicit skim when they are (1) charging a membership fee, (2) collecting an exchange fee and (2) establishing a bid-ask spread. One or two of the three, perhaps not a skim, but all three is definitely a skim. Add to that pulling inventory that would otherwise have demand for exchange, to rent instead, and it makes me wonder if the CEO's last name isn't Soprano.



Another way to look at it is that it is like the old command economies of the old Soviet system.


----------



## e.bram (Feb 12, 2012)

Carolinian:
How about an anti competitive monopoly or quasi monopoly in a Capitalistic system.


----------



## Tia (Feb 12, 2012)

Very creative, I like it  



timeos2 said:


> There should be a song written for that. Maybe they could call it "TaxmanRciman".
> 
> Let me tell you how trades will be
> One blue for you 9 reds for me
> ...


----------



## ampaholic (Feb 13, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> Another way to look at it is that it is like the old command economies of the old Soviet system.



A bunch of thugs propping themselves up by bastardizing the legal system?

I think the Soprano reference might be the closest model of all to how they really *act*.

YMMV


----------



## ronparise (Feb 13, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> A bunch of thugs propping themselves up by bastardizing the legal system?
> 
> I think the Soprano reference might be the closest model of all to how they really *act*.
> 
> YMMV



“it's just business nothing personal...” 
― Mario Puzo

pure capitalism, unfettered by law or regulation


----------



## Laurie (Feb 13, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> _The key is the totality of demand from all sources versus the totality of supply in the system.  That is a key element of free market capitalism.  _When there is price fixing, that is NOT a free market approach.
> 
> Then there are the subsidies where RCI is constantly ''buying'' for more than it is ''selling'' for, i.e. giving more points lite for deposits than they charge to trade into the same week.  Those subsidies are inconsistent with a free market. And those subsidies from RCI are indeed what artificially sustains the overbuilt areas in timesharing.


I agree with others who have pointed out that this is exactly a free market system - under unregulated capitalism. RCI is a corporation, not the government, and there are other companies citizens are free to do business with instead. This isn't a monopoly.

RCI is a corporation whose purpose is to make as much of a profit as possible - by purchasing its product as low as possible, and reselling it as high as the market will bear. 

Price-fixing by a government has nothing to do with a corporate entity setting its prices however it wants to, without explanation to anybody.

As far as supply and demand, this analysis is looking to the wrong ratio for supply and demand. Supply is the quantity of "product" the company can buy for how little. Demand is the quantity it can resell, for how much. 

So as long as it can obtain deposits from members (or whatever other sources) for low cost (ie TPU's, or cash, or whatever) and as long as it can resell those at current prices (rental $$ or TPU's), supply and demand is in balance. 

I'm not saying I love it - I don't - but private companies get to make up their rules of business, and set their prices for what they buy and sell, and have no obligation to obtain my personal approval, nor to conduct their business in a way that I deem "fair." There's certainly no law or precedent that says they have to resell their product for what they buy it for.  

I don't have to sell to, aka deposit with RCI if I don't like what they pay me, aka what I get back in exchange. I'm free to shop around - which I've done, and at the moment I feel I get _less_ back from the other exchange companies. If/when that changes, I can take my business to many other alternatives under in this capitalist system.

(If it were allowed, I could post for a long time about what I think of unregulated capitalism. Perhaps it's ok to say that I don't love that either - I think regulation that promotes and protects fairness is an inherently good thing - but perhaps it's the best alternative for me at the moment, given the alternatives, just like RCI might be the best exchange company for me at the moment, given the alternatives.)


----------



## Beefnot (Feb 13, 2012)

Laurie said:


> I agree with others who have pointed out that this is exactly a free market system - under unregulated capitalism. RCI is a corporation, not the government, and there are other companies citizens are free to do business with instead. This isn't a monopoly.
> 
> RCI is a corporation whose purpose is to make as much of a profit as possible - by purchasing its product as low as possible, and reselling it as high as the market will bear.
> 
> ...



Generally speaking, you are correct. However they are also pulling out deposits to rent instead of exchange and are monkeying with demand, as well as the other aspects pointed out. This is capitalism, yes, and this manifestation of it is mafia-esque.


----------



## ampaholic (Feb 13, 2012)

Laurie said:


> ...
> RCI is a corporation whose purpose is to make as much of a profit as possible - by purchasing its product as low as possible, and reselling it as high as the market will bear.



Just as Tony Sopranos "business" accurires inventory as cheaply as possible and "resells" for what the market will bear. 

After all a "protection" client can't earn money to pay his "protection" with broken knees - so just bruise them.  



Beefnot said:


> ... This is capitalism, yes, and this manifestation of it is mafia-esque.



Wait ... I thought there was no such thing as the Mafia ...  

Let's keep this about the *fictional* group operated by Tony Soprano and his wife Carmela.


----------



## Beefnot (Feb 13, 2012)

Vito: C'monnnn, Tony.  I already paid you $89 for the right to deposit my unit, and I even pay you $169 for each exchange wit my unit I deposited.  But Tone, why's you gotta make it so I gotta pay you rent for a week that I want to exchange?  So now I can't even exchange for the week I want?

Tony: Whoa.  You's a cheeky fella ain't ya.  Ain't nobody says you can't exchange.  We gots plenty of weeks for exchange.  You just can't exchange for _that_ week.  _That_ week, yeah, you gotta rent that one.  The week after or the week before, that will be $169.

Vito: You're bussin' my bawz here, Tony.  I mean, I suppose I could move some things around to take the week after, but this is really kcuffed up, Tone.  I been put up wit a lot from you over the years, and when people's was disrespecting you behind your back, I dint say nuttin.  But now, respectfully Tony, this is getting really kcuffing ridiculous.  Respectfully, nohmsayin Tone?

Tony: Why you ungrateful mudda--.  Dis is what I'm talkin bout.  You have already said yourself that you are able to take the week after, but still you wanna go flappin your gums about it.  You know what?  You have upset me.  You can have the week after as you stated.  But now, it's gonna cost you $179.  You are excused.

Vito: Oh, Tony.  I wasn't tryin' to be disresp--

Tony: $189.  Keep talkin'.  God bless America.  You are excused.

Vito: Thanks Tone.


----------



## Laurie (Feb 13, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Generally speaking, you are correct. However they are also pulling out deposits to rent instead of exchange and are monkeying with demand, as well as the other aspects pointed out. This is capitalism, yes, and this manifestation of it is mafia-esque.


Who said demand isn't defined as = exchange demand + rental demand?  To a corporation, demand = all potential clientele and all profitable markets.

IMO, this is capitalism, and this manifestation is simply corporation-esque - no more and no less. And the ways in which RCI screws people pales in comparison to ways in which other corporations screw people.

Fortunately, RCI's business practices can't cause me to lose my home, or to get cancer by polluting my groundwater, or to destroy my livelinhood by spilling toxic chemicals into the oceans in which I fish - as other corporations in pursuit of maximizing profits do all the time. An un- or under-regulated free market system under capitalism messes with people's lives in "unfair" ways every day.  

What do y'all want, more regulation of RCI's business practices?

Edited to add - not meaning to make this a political thread, but I'm asking why do you expect anything different here from RCI, and what solutions are you suggesting?


----------



## Beefnot (Feb 13, 2012)

I haven't asked for regulation of their practices, but if certain practices are unethical or violate the explicit or implicit covenants the company has with its members, then it is certainly acceptable to pursue legal action to remedy this.  I'm not an RCI customer and not a lawyer, so I cannot speak to that, nor do I have a dog in the fight.

And I should have said monkeying with supply, not demand.  They are monkeying with the supply of exchanges, which is the principal reason that they are in business.


----------



## vckempson (Feb 13, 2012)

Back to the OP's original comments.  

Many here talk about RCI "skimming"; charging more TPU's to trade back in than what was given for depositing that week.  In past threads, my impression was that more times than not, it's the other way around.  It's to RCI's benefit to give more TPU's to generate more trades.  On whole, it seems that happens more frequently.

But there's something else to take into account.  The amount given for deposit can't go down, but may go up.  What's charged to trade into that week, however, starts out higher and will eventually go down as you get closer and closer to the week's usage time.  Its value depreciates over time.  You'd really have to look at the average TPU charged over the entire cycle and compare that to the TPU's given for deposit.  Then you'd have an accurate picture.  

I'd guess that rentals have something to do with any undervalueing of deposits.  Didn't the lawsuit require them to give back an equal amount of high TPU resorts to offset those they take to rent?  That would give them an incentive to undervalue those they might want to keep and rent vs overvalueing those that they put back into the system to replace what they keep and rent.  That might very simply explain all the anomalies that we've seen.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Feb 13, 2012)

This is what I have found for everything we own.



> Many here talk about RCI "skimming"; charging more TPU's to trade back in than what was given for depositing that week. In past threads, my impression was that more times than not, it's the other way around. It's to RCI's benefit to give more TPU's to generate more trades. On whole, it seems that happens more frequently.


----------

