# True Value of an Exchange



## MidlifeTraveler (Aug 31, 2006)

I'm really having a hard time getting into the White Mountains of NH and do not understand why!  I own a 3 bdrm Orange Lake unit.  I deposited my 2005 week in 2004 in the hopes of getting into a 2 bdrm (or atleast a spacious 1 bdrm) sometime during the summers of '05 or '06.  I simply cannot believe there have been NO 2 bedroom units to exchange.  I am now into '07.  During this time, I have seen units for rent through RCI so I don't understand why I should have to pay for something that I believe I should be able to simply exchange.  

How on earth does this work?  Any insight someone at RCI can offer would be greatly appreciated. And please be honest - all the guides over the telephone have not been helpful either.

Thank You.


----------



## Aldo (Sep 1, 2006)

You are seeing exactly how it works.   You deposit your unit with RCI.  Other's deposit their's with RCI.  You get nothing, the weeks you want to exchange for get rented out to the general public.

What is your question?


----------



## ndonovan (Sep 1, 2006)

This is not a question for "Ask RCI".  I am moving it to "Exchanging"


----------



## Spence (Sep 1, 2006)

ndonovan said:
			
		

> This is not a question for "Ask RCI".  I am moving it to "Exchanging"


It certainly is a question for RCI, only they can give a definitive answer, the rest of us can only speculate because of their secretive system of trading power, 'extra' inventory, points partners balancing acts.  This guest has only asked RCI what many of us know from experience, but only RCI can give their usual non-answer to.  They have not asked for specifics on their own exchange, they've not given specifics.  Put it back in _Ask RCI_.


----------



## MidlifeTraveler (Sep 1, 2006)

Thank You for your honesty, Aldo and your support, Spence.

I did read "how to post" and was careful not to be specific.  

I am questioning RCI's exchange _policy_.  Please return this to Ask RCI.

Thanks


----------



## eal (Sep 1, 2006)

*If this isn't a question for "Ask RCI" I don't know what is!*

ndonovan,
This question fits the posting rules and should be posted to Ask RCI.  Madge may not give an answer that we would like to see, but she should at least be expected to respond.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 1, 2006)

Ask RCI will not do much good.  Very likely, all you will get is some corporate spin.  For quite some time we had an excellent inside source on these boards, who was an RCI employee but not officially sanctioned so that he gave us the straight scoop.  He posted under the name Bootleg.  RCI tried for some time to try to identify him, and apparently finally did because he suddenly disappeared from this and other timeshare boards and his email address quit working.


----------



## sfwilshire (Sep 1, 2006)

Madge has always stated that she can't comment on specific trade power.

The OP doesn't say what week at Orange Lake she deposited, but it's quite likely that it doesn't have the trade power she would need to get a summer week in the White Mountains if that is a popular exchange. I've never tried for the area, so can't comment on that.

I didn't check, but it's also possible that there aren't a lot of resorts in the area or that owners don't deposit summer weeks since they may be able to rent them for more.

It's hard to get a good VC on the phone, but if you lucked into one by calling RCI, they might give you a more realistic view of what you can expect. You could also email feedback@rci.com and ask them.

What week at Orange Lake DID you deposit? It makes all the difference in the World. Plus, Orange Lake is a huge resort and gets mixed reviews. The demand for it may be less than for some other Orlando resorts.

Sheila


----------



## gmarine (Sep 1, 2006)

MidlifeTraveler said:
			
		

> I'm really having a hard time getting into the White Mountains of NH and do not understand why!  I own a 3 bdrm Orange Lake unit.  I deposited my 2005 week in 2004 in the hopes of getting into a 2 bdrm (or atleast a spacious 1 bdrm) sometime during the summers of '05 or '06.  I simply cannot believe there have been NO 2 bedroom units to exchange.  I am now into '07.  During this time, I have seen units for rent through RCI so I don't understand why I should have to pay for something that I believe I should be able to simply exchange.
> 
> How on earth does this work?  Any insight someone at RCI can offer would be greatly appreciated. And please be honest - all the guides over the telephone have not been helpful either.
> 
> Thank You.



If the Orange Lake unit that you own is an off season week then you may have a trade power issue. Orlando in general doesnt have great trade power because of the large amount of units available. The NE during the summer is a very popular area so you may be trying to trade a low season mediocre trading area for a high season week. This may be the problem.


----------



## MidlifeTraveler (Sep 1, 2006)

Thank you all!

I deposited week 44 (November), which may be the problem.  The issue I have is that when we bought we were told that we owned a red week in a Gold Crown resort and the earlier we deposited the better our trade would be.  Well, we deposited our '05 week 44 in July of '04 and got no bites for months.  I spoke with the on-site rep at Orange Lake during our '04 November week and was told to be patient that most people don't deposit until January.  In February '05, I called RCI and was told there were no exchanges but if I would reduce my search to a studio I may be able to find something.  I was not satisfied with that answer and kept the active search.  Occasionally, I received phone calls from RCI asking about my request.  It wasn't until I settled for the now canceled Eastern Slope exchange that my blood began to boil and I began to REALLY research this.  

If many people feel the same way, why hasn't something been done about this?  Apparently there are so many of us who were sold a lie that this has to be some sort of real estate violation.  Granted, there's nothing in writing but it's one thing to sell something and not disclose but to lie outright is unacceptable. And to withhold units should be another violation!  I checked the "extra vacations" on RCI.com and, while it was not a 2 bdrm unit, I saw a larger one bedroom unit at Eastern Slope that the one I was offered as an exchange.

Y'know, ndonovan, or whoever administers this board, I must insist you put this back on the Ask Rci board.  I would love an explanation.  

Thanks to the rest of you who allowed me venting space.

I would also like the opinion of a real estate attorney, if there's any out there.


----------



## Spence (Sep 1, 2006)

MidlifeTraveler said:
			
		

> I deposited week 44 (November), which may be the problem.  The issue I have is that when we bought we were told that we owned a red week in a Gold Crown resort and the earlier we deposited the better our trade would be.  Well, we deposited our '05 week 44 in July of '04 and got no bites for months.  I spoke with the on-site rep at Orange Lake during our '04 November week and was told to be patient that most people don't deposit until January.  In February '05, I called RCI and was told there were no exchanges but if I would reduce my search to a studio I may be able to find something.  I was not satisfied with that answer and kept the active search.  Occasionally, I received phone calls from RCI asking about my request.  It wasn't until I settled for the now canceled Eastern Slope exchange that my blood began to boil and I began to REALLY research this.
> 
> If many people feel the same way, why hasn't something been done about this?  Apparently there are so many of us who were sold a lie that this has to be some sort of real estate violation.  Granted, there's nothing in writing but it's one thing to sell something and not disclose but to lie outright is unacceptable. And to withhold units should be another violation!  I checked the "extra vacations" on RCI.com and, while it was not a 2 bdrm unit, I saw a larger one bedroom unit at Eastern Slope that the one I was offered as an exchange.
> 
> ...



You won't like RCI's non-answer.
Wk44 is the problem, slowest time of year.  This is RED because the developer says it's red, a salesman's ploy.  

This is a true statement (but not really)  _we were told that we owned a red week in a Gold Crown resort and the earlier we deposited the better our trade would be_

RCI has secret trade power formulas, there are better blue and white weeks all over the world.  Too much supply in Orlando, no demand for your week overall.


----------



## MidlifeTraveler (Sep 1, 2006)

Okay, who told RCI I was po'd 

When I returned to the website for one final search before I blew my top, I had a 2brm hold for August at the Cold Spring waiting for me.  It's a sliver crown (does this replace the RIC category?) but it has the full 2 bedrooms and the full kitchen.  A little further south than I needed but we don't mind "adventuring".

Coincidence, hmmm?  Would still like the RCI board's opinion on all this.

Thank you all again.  I let my membership expire last year and had to rejoin.  I had forgotten how helpful you all are!


----------



## gmarine (Sep 1, 2006)

Week 44 is the problem. You are trying to trade a very low demand time of year for a very high demand time of year. This is the problem. 

Just for a second forget that RCI is renting weeks. Even if the weeks you are looking for were available, it is still unlikely that you would get one. Many other RCI members with stronger trading weeks would get them before you. The problem in your case isnt RCI or renting of weeks it is your trade power. In one of your posts you mention being told not to buy OLCC. This is why.

Orlando in general doesnt have great trade power. Add a low demand week to that and it gets worse.

BTW, RCI discloses in its Terms and Conditions that it has the right to do as it wishes with your weeks.


----------



## KenK (Sep 1, 2006)

Yes, Silver replaced RID.


----------



## MidlifeTraveler (Sep 1, 2006)

gmarine:

Unfortunately, I'm only just realizing the REAL trading power issue.  It's unfortunate that I did not understand exactly how it worked at the time I purchased the unit.  The week number itself was left out of the equation and the concept was sold on the "rare 3 bedroom, gold crown, many amenities,etc".   It is unfair for me to have to wait 2 years, however, and line up behind rentals!  Maybe RCI can do as they wish with the weeks but this only motivates people to rent or guest their weeks to friends, which only further depletes inventory and is of no benefit to RCI or owners!

My husband and I just had a discussion that maybe it's time to start our attempt at the Allen House in London NOW and hopefully will get in there for 2008.

An unhappy lesson learned but atleast I'm finally going to the White Mountains.

Reminds me to keep up with these boards 

Thanks again.


----------



## BevL (Sep 1, 2006)

Yikes, London?  Using an Orlando week 44 timeshare?  That's a pretty tall order, I think.  

Are you able to book another week other than week 44?  If so, try for July 4th, spring break times, Easter, Christmas, New Years.  Your trade power will go up.

And I hope you hang around and check in from time to time.  Your questions are valid and intelligent, and you might find the learning experience you can go through here quite interesting.

Bev


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 1, 2006)

*Most areas aren't awash in 2 or 3 bedroom units*

Besides the above mentioned trade power (November Orlando is a very weak period although strong compared to November on a beach) vs a summer period anywhere which tends to be high demand there is a unit size issue at work.  There aren't very many 2 bedroom units in the seasonal areas whereas Orlando tends to a minimum of 2 and often 3 or even 4.  Just because you deposit a 3 it may not be easy to get a 2 in exchange especially in a peak period.  

Equality in trade is very tough.  Everything is in play - demand, unit size, time of year, available inventory, resort ranking and more.  Thats why week for week trades are so tough.  It's also why I feel points systems are a better method of matching up your deposit with your desired trade.


----------



## DanM (Sep 1, 2006)

I don't think you will get London with an off season Orlando week. If you haven't deposited with RCI yet, you would be better depositing it with Dial an Exchange (check out daelive.com). They have more European availability and trade unit for unit, regardless of season. London is still hard to get, but you might find something good in England if you start your search early.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 1, 2006)

DAE gets Hever Hotel and Country Club, which is fairly close to London, a good bit.


----------



## riverside (Sep 1, 2006)

I'm seeing 2 bedrooms for  July and August in Intervale, North Woodstock and Jackson. (unless those are east farther than you wanted?) If you can't pull those then it is a trade power issue.


----------



## wackymother (Sep 1, 2006)

If it's any comfort I'm looking with a 2br GC July Williamsburg week and I can only see 2brs in Ashland and Jackson. (Seven places if you want 1br, though.) So I don't know if the week 44 thing is having that much impact.


----------



## MidlifeTraveler (Sep 1, 2006)

Thanks, Bev.  I do plan to stick around this time.   and to start my London research now!


----------



## gmarine (Sep 1, 2006)

MidlifeTraveler said:
			
		

> gmarine:
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm only just realizing the REAL trading power issue.  It's unfortunate that I did not understand exactly how it worked at the time I purchased the unit.  The week number itself was left out of the equation and the concept was sold on the "rare 3 bedroom, gold crown, many amenities,etc".   It is unfair for me to have to wait 2 years, however, and line up behind rentals!  Maybe RCI can do as they wish with the weeks but this only motivates people to rent or guest their weeks to friends, which only further depletes inventory and is of no benefit to RCI or owners!
> 
> ...



London with a week 44 Orlando?  Unfortunately this is very unlikely. I wish you luck but dont get your hopes up. London is a very difficult exchange even with a stron trading week. Makes getting into NH in summer look very easy by comparison.


----------



## elaine (Sep 2, 2006)

*I agree with others--you need to be realistic to get the most out of your OLCC week*

areas that you could pull might include other weeks at OLCC--try for Easter, summer, etc.  Also Williamsburg and Branson, because there is a large supply.

Late summer or early Fall beach weeks in the SE are still nice weather, but easier trades late Aug thru Sept.  Also, late Spring beach weeks are quite nice.  But I doubt you could pull a summer beach week.

You can still have nice vacations, but trading week 44 for London is unrealistic and I believe that you will be disappointed. 

Other areas are Oregon mountains, lakes, Canadian resorts----maybe summer, but late summer or early Fall would be more likely.  Glad you got your white mountains.  good luck.


----------



## sfwilshire (Sep 2, 2006)

Re: the real estate lawyer, I feel comfortable in saying that Orange Lake made you sign all sorts of documents that cover their behinds. Nothing said verbally means a thing. You agreed that no guarantees were made regarding trading power. And so on.

This is a common lesson buyers learn the hard way. Learn what you CAN get with this unit and decide in the end if it's worth keeping or if you need to dump it and buy something better. 

Chances are you can get some nice vacations in less highly demanded locales. You may find that you want to add a better trader to go for the "big guns" like Allen House or peak summer resort areas.

Sheila


----------



## MidlifeTraveler (Sep 2, 2006)

Sheila:

Funny you say that about adding a good trader.  That's exactly what I was thinking just last night.  We LOVE our OLCC week because most years it coincides with the teachers convention week in New Jersey (schools are closed most of the week) and we enjoy low crowds.  Orange Lake also has soooo many other things to do on site and the units are immaculate so I don't regret buying it.  But it would certainly be worth the investment to purchase a good trader, even if it's a place I never go to.  Now I understand why people own multiple weeks.  However, the next one will be resale 

Well, I guess I have lots of homework to do.


----------



## daventrina (Sep 2, 2006)

*Try this then - Has to be RCI*



			
				ndonovan said:
			
		

> This is not a question for "Ask RCI".  I am moving it to "Exchanging"


 Ok, this should be a RCI specific question:
How is it that RCI can continue to shaft people that try to exchange and can not get what they want for exchange but can rent the exact week that they are trying to exchange from RCI.

It is not likely that there will be an answer from Madge as she was probably told not to discuss the issue because of the two law suits against RCI concerning this specific issue.:ignore:

For example:
We tried for 8 months to exchange our Red Wolf Lodge (one of the highest demanded resorts on the Lake), Tahoe Easter ski week for a July week on Hawaii. Nothing at all was available for exchange the entire period and we were searching for every resort on the island with exception of Paniolo Greens and Sea Mountain.:annoyed:

  However, we could rent nearly every single one of those resorts from RCI for significantly more than the exchange fee ($800-$2300).

  RCI’s problems can be fixed. Everyone just needs to use another exchange company for a year. If no one gives RCI a week to exchange, it is very likely that RCI would get the message that timeshare owners are not very happy with the way that RCI is being run by Cendant. We, game, but it is not likely that we would get enough other owners together to deliver that clear message.
  End of rant


----------



## MidlifeTraveler (Sep 2, 2006)

(can someone "splain how to get the quotes from previous posts, please?)


I had commented in one of my earlier posts about this.  As people begin to become disatisfied with the inability to exchange, they will rent to friends (or bank elsewhere as you suggest).  This is really a shame because the whole timeshare concept is wonderful.  It forces you to take that family trip that you may not otherwise make the time for (at a reasonable cost, I might add).

RCI's greed is forcing everyone to lose, themselves included.  I did some research on that lawsuit someone wrote about earlier.  Let's see where it goes.  At the very least, If they're forced to disclose what they do with the deposits, we'll all win.


----------



## daventrina (Sep 2, 2006)

MidlifeTraveler said:
			
		

> (can someone "splain how to get the quotes from previous posts, please?)


Just click on the "Quote" button - and remove any un-needed content


			
				MidlifeTraveler said:
			
		

> I did some research on that lawsuit someone wrote about earlier.  Let's see where it goes.



BTW: Every RCI member is automatically party to the suit.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 2, 2006)

*The lawsuit is no answer*



			
				daventrina said:
			
		

> However, we could rent nearly every single one of those resorts from RCI for significantly more than the exchange fee ($800-$2300).
> 
> RCI’s problems can be fixed. Everyone just needs to use another exchange company for a year. If no one gives RCI a week to exchange, it is very likely that RCI would get the message that timeshare owners are not very happy with the way that RCI is being run by Cendant. We, game, but it is not likely that we would get enough other owners together to deliver that clear message.
> End of rant



The last paragraph is the answer for those who think RCI isn't treating members fairly.  The lawsuit, which has already been cut in scope, is most likely to be thrown out or, at best, result in a $.50 rebate to owners and hundreds of thousands of dollars to the slick lawyers on both sides. It is highly unlikely to impact the operation of RCI much.  Remember that Microsoft was found as guilty as sin but after the damage was already done they got a slap on the wrist and nothing has changed. That was a case with true monopoly power involved. In the case of RCI membership/use is voluntary and the terms are clearly disclosed. Tough to say that anyone has no choice but to utilize RCI services.  It is strictly an option and as such you agree to the rules when you deposit. If you don't like it you don't have to use it. The lawsuit will help no one and at worst will cost RCI members more money even if it goes to trial in 3-5 years.  By then, like poor Netscape and others in the MS case, the people/resorts supposedly hurt won't be in the game anymore, RCI will look different and the courts tend to say no harm now - dismissed.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 2, 2006)

From what I am told by a lawyer who is in communication with one of the lawyers in the class action, they are seeking injunctive relief as well as money damages.  Injunctive relief means that RCI could be hit with a court order to cease and desist from some of its customer unfriendly practices.

RCI is in fact a quasi-monopoly at many resorts for those owners who wish to trade.  Many resorts are not dual affiliated, so there is no competition from II at such resorts, and the resorts in many cases do not tell their owners about the independents. If a member wants to exchange, they don't have a way to use anyone but RCI.

Is this really voluntary?  I would beg to differ.  Its like buying a ticket from an airline and them telling you it is voluntary whether you get on the plane or not.

RCI's ''rules'' are likely to be found to be a contract of adhesion.  I am told that this issue is in the lawsuit.  If found to be a contract of adhesion, what RCI puts in its rules is not likely to be much of a defense for them.

RCI also has a habit of changing its rules without telling anyone.  The time they quietly added ''rentals'' to the use they could make of deposits was quietly slipped in without any mention in their magazine, on their website, or in any other way that would realistically let their members know of that change. 

Many of RCI's members joined without any clue as to what they put in the fine print of their rules.  These members accepted none of these terms knowingly.  Many of these same members, however, bought from developers who showed them a video and other materials prepared by RCI that conveniently failed to mention many of their new customer unfriendly policies.
Thus, RCI participated in pulling the wool over their eyes.





			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> The last paragraph is the answer for those who think RCI isn't treating members fairly.  The lawsuit, which has already been cut in scope, is most likely to be thrown out or, at best, result in a $.50 rebate to owners and hundreds of thousands of dollars to the slick lawyers on both sides. It is highly unlikely to impact the operation of RCI much.  Remember that Microsoft was found as guilty as sin but after the damage was already done they got a slap on the wrist and nothing has changed. That was a case with true monopoly power involved. In the case of RCI membership/use is voluntary and the terms are clearly disclosed. Tough to say that anyone has no choice but to utilize RCI services.  It is strictly an option and as such you agree to the rules when you deposit. If you don't like it you don't have to use it. The lawsuit will help no one and at worst will cost RCI members more money even if it goes to trial in 3-5 years.  By then, like poor Netscape and others in the MS case, the people/resorts supposedly hurt won't be in the game anymore, RCI will look different and the courts tend to say no harm now - dismissed.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 2, 2006)

Of course using RCI is voluntary. You can use your unit, do a private exchange or rent your unit. Nobody is forcing anyone to join RCI. 

The resort didnt tell owners about independant exchange companies? Why should they have to? If buyers arent smart enough to know what they are buying and joining that's their own fault.

The lawyers that I know laugh at this lawsuit. I'm sure most others worth anything are doing the same. Its gonna be thrown out or every member will get a quarter, the lawyers will make money and RCI will continue as before.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 2, 2006)

I know of few lawyers who would comment on lawsuits that they have little or no information on, and if they do shoot from the hip, their aim is going to be anything but accurate.

Several major class action firms are involved in the RCI class action, and I suspect they all did their homework before filing, and they they wouldn't be investing so much of their own money in this effort if they didn't think it would pay off.  And class actions DO involve substantial investment by the law firms.

Also, at least one, and possibly both, of the lead plaintiffs are in this thing for more than just money in their own pockets.  They have to go along with any settlement, and I would be very surprised if they would stand aside for one that did not resolve the key issues.

That said, I have always preferred that these issues be taken up in a state Attorney General's consumer protection lawsuit, where lawyers fees were not a consideration.  But the class action got to the courthouse first, and hopefully will pay off for members.

As to RCI being voluntary, please read my post.  For EXCHANGERS in a resort that it not dual affiliated nor informs members that they can use an independent, their only option is RCI.  There is no competition. This is a quasi-monopoly on exchanging.  Private exchanges a realistic alternative for the average timesharer?  Hardly!  Only timeshare experts have any clue how to do this. 

Timeshare buyers dumb?  Why blame the victim?




			
				gmarine said:
			
		

> Of course using RCI is voluntary. You can use your unit, do a private exchange or rent your unit. Nobody is forcing anyone to join RCI.
> 
> The resort didnt tell owners about independant exchange companies? Why should they have to? If buyers arent smart enough to know what they are buying and joining that's their own fault.
> 
> The lawyers that I know laugh at this lawsuit. I'm sure most others worth anything are doing the same. Its gonna be thrown out or every member will get a quarter, the lawyers will make money and RCI will continue as before.


----------



## brucecz (Sep 2, 2006)

MidlifeTraveler said:
			
		

> Sheila:
> 
> Funny you say that about adding a good trader.  That's exactly what I was thinking just last night.  We LOVE our OLCC week because most years it coincides with the teachers convention week in New Jersey (schools are closed most of the week) and we enjoy low crowds.  Orange Lake also has soooo many other things to do on site and the units are immaculate so I don't regret buying it.  But it would certainly be worth the investment to purchase a good trader, even if it's a place I never go to.  Now I understand why people own multiple weeks.  However, the next one will be resale
> 
> Well, I guess I have lots of homework to do.



Wecome and seeing you enjoy vacationing at your Orange Lake then that trade issue is not to bad  and seeing  that you seem to be learning PDQ and have your sites on a resale for trading.

You have gotten some very good advice from some of the previous posters.
I only thing I would add is do not buy a resale untill attending both Tug U and Timeshare forums U for at least a couple of months. But you seem to be on top off that as indicate you are going to do some homework.

Maybe one of the point systems might be something that you might want to take a close look at seeing you would know unfront how many points you would need for certain trades.

 Warning these timeshare websites and timesharing in general can be very addictive. I am gald that I am not   addicted like some of the other posters on this string.

Bruce


----------



## PerryM (Sep 2, 2006)

*As I understand the RCI lawsuit...*

Bumpkins, our world seems to be ruled by bumpkins.

If the RCI lawsuit(s) ever get to the point where a jury is selected, the plaintiffs will be seeking a whole herd of bumpkins – many of them seem to live close to me in southern Illinois – I guess the growing conditions are just right there.  Don’t get me wrong, bumpkins grow all over this fine land, but the big ones seem to be located here.

The goal is to convince these bumpkins that someone affluent enough (That means millions of folks richer than our average bumpkin) are getting a raw deal.  And what is that raw deal?

They don’t want to take a vacation at their fancy-schmancy resort but take their reservation and turn it over RCI and hope some other affluent person is just as bored and does the same thing.

So our bumpkins are worried about a bunch of bored affluent folks with way too much vacation on their hands and decide the fate of the timeshare world?

Ok, the bumpkins have made it so far, now the evil plot is presented to them:

RCI also lets our bored affluent rich folks turn in their boring 5-star vacations for airline tickets which will whisk the bored affluent rich folks to another 5-star resort.  Our bumpkin knows that money doesn’t grow on trees (that’s a guess on his part) and that RCI has to make money somehow – renting those expensive 5-star resorts out and as it turns, to fellow bumpkins who can’t afford to buy a timeshare.

Wow now that’s got our bumpkin riveted to his chair.  Now the evil plot – RCI uses it’s best judgment as to which reservations to rent to his fellow bumpkins and sometimes they are fancy-schmancy resorts in Branson!

Right about now our bumpkin is listening to the $1,500 an hour lawyers moan and groan how this is unfair to some other bored affluent guy with way too many vacation weeks on his hand.

That’s when you can almost see the light bulb (60 watt) go off in our bumpkins' head – today is Wednesday and the courthouse cafeteria always serves meatloaf!

Yes, I can see how the timeshare world will be rocked to the bone!


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 2, 2006)

While one inevitably gets some of what you would call bumpkins on any jury, they tend not to be the opinion leaders.  A good jury consultant and most trial lawyers have ways of identifying the opinion leaders and deciding whether particular ones would be good to have on a particular case.  Few jury challenges are wasted on the bumpkins who are along for the ride.  They are directed to the opinion leaders who will make a difference in jury deliberations.

And BTW, injuctive relief is an issue of law decided by a judge, not an issue of fact determined by a jury, although a permanent injunction may often depend on one or more issues of fact determined by a jury.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 2, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> I know of few lawyers who would comment on lawsuits that they have little or no information on, and if they do shoot from the hip, their aim is going to be anything but accurate.
> 
> Several major class action firms are involved in the RCI class action, and I suspect they all did their homework before filing, and they they wouldn't be investing so much of their own money in this effort if they didn't think it would pay off.  And class actions DO involve substantial investment by the law firms.
> 
> ...



No competition? The buyer isnt buying into RCI or any exchange company. The buyer is purchasing a timeshare at a specific resort. They can use the week they own as per there membership agreement with the resort. Anything past that is their responsibility to understand and learn.

Please read a timeshare contract. No where does it say you must use RCI in order to use your week. Exchanging is OPTIONAL. It isnt a requirement to be able to use their timeshare.
Can they still use it without RCI? Of course they can.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 2, 2006)

*You've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone*

The lawsuits will fix everything believers seem to want to overlook the fact that RCI - or any exchange company - isn't part of their purchase although they may get a complimentary membership in the deal, isn't required, doesn't have any obiligation to prop up undesireable weeks at resorts and, if used, is  strictly a voluntary decision by the owner.  If even one of those things weren't true they might have a small chance of making a case. But talking about adhesions and slip streaming new language into the disclosure isn't going to change a thing.  The bottom line is no one is forced to give RCI their use time and, if they do, they agree to abide by the rules as RCI lays them out. No one can be forced to deposit time with RCI or any other exchange group.  It couldn't be any clearer and that is exactly what any court with even the slightest bit of sense is going to rule. We won't have to wait for the Bumpkins to toss it out as it isn't likely to ever get that far. I can't believe anyone thinks that such a claim has any merit or will survive to a trial.  Stange things happen but that would be out of  Twilight Zone episode.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 2, 2006)

There are, of course, quite a few people who buy to exchange.  The options you mention are not why they bought their timeshare.  Why did they buy to exchange?  Probably because they watched the video and looked at other materials produced by RCI and provided to the developer which hyped exchanging.  Do you still not acknowledge RCI's involvment in this situation?
RCI also provides a disclosure guide that it publishes that is required by the law of most if not all states to be provided by the developer at the time of sale to any purchaser at an RCI-affiliated resort, and is a fairly thick booklet of maybe a hundred pages.  After all of that, many, if not most buyers THINK they are buying into RCI even if the fine print may say otherwise.

SHould the buyer still be the victim and the exchange company get off scot free?





			
				gmarine said:
			
		

> No competition? The buyer isnt buying into RCI or any exchange company. The buyer is purchasing a timeshare at a specific resort. They can use the week they own as per there membership agreement with the resort. Anything past that is their responsibility to understand and learn.
> 
> Please read a timeshare contract. No where does it say you must use RCI in order to use your week. Exchanging is OPTIONAL. It isnt a requirement to be able to use their timeshare.
> Can they still use it without RCI? Of course they can.


----------



## spatenfloot (Sep 2, 2006)

Most people would not be buying their offseason blue and white weeks if they didn't think they would be able to exchange them.  The timeshare salespeople push that aspect pretty much nonstop.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 2, 2006)

What we are dealing with as a legal standard are the state consumer protection laws, in this case the law in New Jersey.  Most such laws are fairly similar.  The consumer protection law in North Carolina, for example, states that ''Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are unlawful''.

That is a very broad target to shoot at.

When RCI tells members that it is an exchange company and the members deposit weeks for exchange and RCI does not inform them in any meaningful way that RCI is in fact renting out those weeks to the general public, is this deceptive? Is it unfair? Particularly when they are taking inventory out of the Weeks system, which has nothing to do with Points Partners, and rents them to pay for Points Partner transactions?

I could go on, but I think the point is clear.

If RCI just denied timeshare owners a membership, maybe they could argue the defense you cite, but they didn't.  They took the owners money and exchange deposit and then engaged in the practices complained about in the lawsuit.  Your defense doesn't get to first base under those facts.




			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> The lawsuits will fix everything believers seem to want to overlook the fact that RCI - or any exchange company - isn't part of their purchase although they may get a complimentary membership in the deal, isn't required, doesn't have any obiligation to prop up undesireable weeks at resorts and, if used, is  strictly a voluntary decision by the owner.  If even one of those things weren't true they might have a small chance of making a case. But talking about adhesions and slip streaming new language into the disclosure isn't going to change a thing.  The bottom line is no one is forced to give RCI their use time and, if they do, they agree to abide by the rules as RCI lays them out. No one can be forced to deposit time with RCI or any other exchange group.  It couldn't be any clearer and that is exactly what any court with even the slightest bit of sense is going to rule. We won't have to wait for the Bumpkins to toss it out as it isn't likely to ever get that far. I can't believe anyone thinks that such a claim has any merit or will survive to a trial.  Stange things happen but that would be out of  Twilight Zone episode.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 2, 2006)

. . . and don't forget the RCI videos and other materials that RCI produces and provides to the developers that do the very same thing!




			
				spatenfloot said:
			
		

> Most people would not be buying their offseason blue and white weeks if they didn't think they would be able to exchange them.  The timeshare salespeople push that aspect pretty much nonstop.


----------



## Timeshare Von (Sep 2, 2006)

MidlifeTraveler said:
			
		

> gmarine: My husband and I just had a discussion that maybe it's time to start our attempt at the Allen House in London NOW and hopefully will get in there for 2008.



Good luck with that.  I think that will be even more difficult to get into, especially with an overbuilt Orlando, low demand week trader.


----------



## Timeshare Von (Sep 2, 2006)

spatenfloot said:
			
		

> Most people would not be buying their offseason blue and white weeks if they didn't think they would be able to exchange them.  The timeshare salespeople push that aspect pretty much nonstop.



And there isn't a single timeshare developer in Orlando who isn't using the biggest ploy in the book . . . "Orlando is the #1 international vacation destination in the world and you should own here because it is the highest demand area in the world."

Unfortunately even with that being said, the supply still signficantly outweighs the demand, hence the easy trades and rather large upgrades when using RCI to go to Orlando.

Yvonne


----------



## Timeshare Von (Sep 2, 2006)

*And as for the RCI lawsuit . . .*

If RCI members are lucky, we might get "one free exchange" out of the settlement.  "Cash value" stuff is big in the eyes of those class action settlements.

Recently the company who makes my printer (Epson) was found guilty in a class action suit.  Every member of the "class" received a coupon good for around $20 off the purchase of Epson ink cartridges purchased from Epson, via their website.  JOY!  $20 off something that is already overpriced by at least 50%.

Class action suit settlements are rarely worth the time of day for the public.  Someone said it right . . . only the attorneys on the two sides win on those deals!

Yvonne


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 3, 2006)

What you overlook is that the lead plaintiff has to agree to any settlement terms, and in this case at least one of the lead plaintiffs is very outspoken on the principles and from the general communication he has had with me, I don't believe that he is likely to agree to a settlement that doesn't resolve the real issure.  That is a general assessment, as we did not discuss any prospective settlement at all.  What did come accross strongly is that he is in it for the principles and to right the wrongs.  From what I have learned through other people about the lead plaintiff in the other suit (now merged), she may very well be of similar mettle.  Paying for their sins with a big legal fees to the lawyers and a pittiance to the victims just may not work for the defendent in this one.

But, of course, the generalities you cite that are all too common in class actions, is one of the big reasons that my preference all along has been to try to have these issues addressed by a state Attorney General through their consumer protection laws.  Some of the pre-litigation tools availible to the AG may well even bring such an exchange company to cry uncle even before a civil action was even filed by an AG.




			
				Timeshare Von said:
			
		

> If RCI members are lucky, we might get "one free exchange" out of the settlement.  "Cash value" stuff is big in the eyes of those class action settlements.
> 
> Recently the company who makes my printer (Epson) was found guilty in a class action suit.  Every member of the "class" received a coupon good for around $20 off the purchase of Epson ink cartridges purchased from Epson, via their website.  JOY!  $20 off something that is already overpriced by at least 50%.
> 
> ...


----------



## Timeshare Von (Sep 3, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> But, of course, the generalities you cite that are all too common in class actions, is one of the big reasons that my preference all along has been to try to have these issues addressed by a state Attorney General through their consumer protection laws.  Some of the pre-litigation tools availible to the AG may well even bring such an exchange company to cry uncle even before a civil action was even filed by an AG.



Where is Elliot Spitzer when you need him?  Oh yeah, running for Governor I do believe


----------



## PerryM (Sep 3, 2006)

*Two words that solve the RCI problem...*

We should blame RCI?

If a timeshare is affiliated with II and RCI does the monopoly theory hold water?  You have 2 competitive companies vying for customers.  The owners cry "It's too hard to learn another system".  We should blame RCI?

How about those lazy HOAs and developers who cry “It’s too much work” to get another exchange company.  We should blame RCI?

How about the numbskulls in the HOA or developer that signed an exclusive deal with RCI – do they bear any responsibility?  We should blame RCI?

What about renting the week on eBay?  Is that a viable alternative to RCI?  Of course it is – you get cold hard cash.  Some owners will cry “It’s too hard and complicated”.  We should blame RCI?

How about renting on RedWeek and MyResortNetwork – it costs $20 for 6 months to reach thousands of fellow timeshare owners.  “I’m scared of trying something new” cries our owner.  We should blame RCI?

What about the independent exchange companies that anyone can take their reservation to and get an exchange out of their pool?  “I don’t know how to do that” cries our owner.  We should blame RCI?

This is just another example of not placing responsibilities where they belong.  In this case it is Childs play to demonstrate that ANY timeshare owner has a wide spectrum of alternatives to RCI – it just takes placing the responsibility where it belongs – on the shoulders of the owner.

This problem, just like so many that clog the courts, can be solved with just two words “*Grow up*”.

How about the owner who sees what he thinks are injustices in the RCI system and keeps using RCI when many alternatives are available and wants to sue to boot?  “I’m right and RCI is wrong” cries this owner.  “Grow up” is the correct answer, there are countless alternatives available.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 3, 2006)

*One small item easily handled with a promise*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> When RCI tells members that it is an exchange company and the members deposit weeks for exchange and RCI does not inform them in any meaningful way that RCI is in fact renting out those weeks to the general public, is this deceptive? Is it unfair? Particularly when they are taking inventory out of the Weeks system, which has nothing to do with Points Partners, and rents them to pay for Points Partner transactions?



The one and only possible case there may be is that somehow RCI has broken faith by taking in a deposit for trade and then using it instead for rental. Of course they have covered that with the disclosures and terms that the member agrees to - even if they haven't read them - and if that disclosure holds up (the most likely outcome) then the whole suit is toast. They can promise to do better and thats that. 

As for the plaintiff's "not accepting" a seettlement that they don't like that doesn't hold water.  If they don't accept whatever is proposed outside of court as a settlement then RCI simply goes to court and gets a judgement in it's favor.  When you have a weak or no case you have no power in settlement talks.  

I remain convinced that this lawsuit is doomed either by being dismissed or by dragging out for so long that any result will be meaningless. I can't see any chance that it will achieve the results desired by most RCI detractors as RCI would most likely sell off or close/merge the weeks system and simply move to 100% points by the time any court decision was made.  The 4-5 years or more before any result can be expected is more than enough time for them to transision over as appears to be the goal anyway.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 3, 2006)

PerryM said:
			
		

> We should blame RCI?
> 
> If a timeshare is affiliated with II and RCI does the monopoly theory hold water?  You have 2 competitive companies vying for customers.  The owners cry "It's too hard to learn another system".  We should blame RCI?
> 
> ...




Well said. Its very true. Always blame someone else. Buyers dont read the purchase contract then they blame the resort or RCI or the tooth fairy. They dont read the RCI membership agreement then they blame RCI or the resort or anybody else but themselves. 

They have no idea how a timeshare works or what exactly they are buying. But they plunk down thousands of $$, sign a contract that they dont bother to read and accept an RCI membership without reading the Terms and Conditions. Then when they realize they dont know what they bought or how RCI works, they put the blame everywhere else except where it belongs.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 3, 2006)

As I recall, you also didn't think much of the Bluebeards Castle HOA's chances in their lawsuit against Fairfield, but now there have been a series of rulings by the court in favor of the HOA's and against Fairfield, including allowing a claim to go forward against Fairfield for treble damages.  Discovery has revealed over $10 million in additional possible damages that the HOA's had not known about when they filed the lawsuit.  And the court has now set a trial date.  No, I don't think Fairfield is going to slip away on that one.  Their time to pay up is coming.

The RCI suit is in an earlier phase, but three major class action law firms are behind the Murillo branch of the case, and these guys didn't just fall off of a turnip truck.  Another class action firm is behind the Chase branch of the case.  With four class action law firms against them, RCI may have met their match.  And these firms are seeking injunctive relief - a court order to compel RCI to stop some of its practices that harm members like the rentals and the Points/Weeks interface.  Its not just money they are after. 

The HOA's have already gotten injunctive relief on some issues in the Bluebeards Castle case, with Fairfield being ordered to keep its nose out of HOA elections and appointments.

It is the injunctive relief in the RCI case that is critical.  The money is not at all significant. 




			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> The one and only possible case there may be is that somehow RCI has broken faith by taking in a deposit for trade and then using it instead for rental. Of course they have covered that with the disclosures and terms that the member agrees to - even if they haven't read them - and if that disclosure holds up (the most likely outcome) then the whole suit is toast. They can promise to do better and thats that.
> 
> As for the plaintiff's "not accepting" a seettlement that they don't like that doesn't hold water.  If they don't accept whatever is proposed outside of court as a settlement then RCI simply goes to court and gets a judgement in it's favor.  When you have a weak or no case you have no power in settlement talks.
> 
> I remain convinced that this lawsuit is doomed either by being dismissed or by dragging out for so long that any result will be meaningless. I can't see any chance that it will achieve the results desired by most RCI detractors as RCI would most likely sell off or close/merge the weeks system and simply move to 100% points by the time any court decision was made.  The 4-5 years or more before any result can be expected is more than enough time for them to transision over as appears to be the goal anyway.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 3, 2006)

For dual affiliated resorts, the monopoly theory, obviously, doesn't apply.  But these are a minority of RCI resorts.  The exclusive deal language is standard language in RCI (and II) contracts.  RCI wrote it, the resorts did not.  And that language may well bite RCI in the arse in the lawsuit, as it really digs them in as to monopolistic practices.  Are you saying that the resorts should be blamed when RCI wrote that language, not the resorts?

I have long said that the answer to making the big boys behave correctly in the exchange world is to grow the competition.   I strongly support resorts dual affiliating with both big companies and making their members aware of the independents. I think Tuggers should be proactive in urging their resorts to do so.  But in the real world of timeshare exchanging, at many resorts members have no real alternative to RCI that they are given knowledge of if they want to exchange.  That creates a monopoly situation.  

Yes some members buy to rent.  But those who buy to exchange should not be forced to rent.

You never do seem to address the fact that RCI created a lot of the problem by producing videos and other materials and providing them to developers that hyped exchanging, and for years they did that promoting a model that they are now reputiating.  In your mind, doesn't that make them at least a little bit responsible?????



			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> We should blame RCI?
> 
> If a timeshare is affiliated with II and RCI does the monopoly theory hold water?  You have 2 competitive companies vying for customers.  The owners cry "It's too hard to learn another system".  We should blame RCI?
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Sep 4, 2006)

*BYOB*

I would hope that RCI would frame this whole idea of exchanging as a BYOB party (Bring Your Own Booze).

At a BYOB party you bring a bottle of booze, be it moonshine, wine, tequila, premixed margaritas, whatever, and the party works fine.  Everyone gets to sample another type of drink and everyone leaves with a hangover – who could ask for more?

But, there’s always some clown that doesn’t get the word and shows up empty handed.  The host scolds the guest for not contributing to the party but more than likely admits the person and everyone has a great time.

Funny thing is that even with freeloaders there is always leftover booze to be thrown away the next day.  And this is what RCI should present to the bumpkins sitting in judgment.  RCI regularly has weeks that expire worthless.  If this is so, who was harmed by participating in the exchange of weeks or points at the RCI party?  There was no shortage of vacations just waiting to be claimed.

Now if many of these are motel 6 type resorts in the wrong season, that sounds like some owners got good exchanges and some got bad exchanges – that’s life.

These expiring weeks, just like the leftover booze, should convince our bumpkin jurists that there was plenty of exchanges/booze to go around – even with RCI selling weeks that it felt would serve the greater good of everyone having a great time at the party.

If this is the case, RCI is doing a great time hosting the exchange party.

The plaintive can argue all day long that RCI provided sales material to be disseminated to potential customers and that was somehow harmful.  Our bumpkin gets all kinds of junk mail everyday doing the same exact thing – makes for a great fire.

Membership in RCI is at the discretion of the timeshare owner and no one is holding a squirrel gun to their head.


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 4, 2006)

*Now wait a minute, Perry*

At one time, these resorts stood empty. That may not have been ideal either because the resort hopes to sell something to these people who rent there from RCI or II but who is paying the bill for all the wear and tear that the condo suffers? It is the timeshare owner! What do we get out of this rental deal?


----------



## PerryM (Sep 4, 2006)

*Proof positive (and not 80 proof)*

Emmy,

When we bought our SA weeks 2+ years ago 2 weeks missed the deadline of being able to be converted to RCI Points.  I still have 1 of them in my week account, the other expired worthless on 8/31/06.  We have so many timeshare units that I didn’t even bother trying to find an exchange with these two.  So I’m living proof that weeks expire unused in RCI.

I paid the MFs and yet allowed them to expire without an exchange – the resort has their money and this will not affect them.  I see no harm to the resort and RCI’s renting of units to the public had no affect on me either – we just didn’t have enough vacation time to use them anyway.  They were specifically bought for RCI Points and usage there.


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 4, 2006)

Perry, are you talking about a South Africa week?  That may happen with some resorts but I doubt if that happens with the resorts that exchange very well.  You would have taken that exchange for sure if the exchange company had not rented it to the public from under you?  If that's what they do and that's what I object to unless the proceeds went to the timeshare owner.  

Timeshare owners do not want to pay for refurbishing more often than we have to.  However, we will complain if the units look bad.  I still believe that timeshare owners treat the condo with more respect than renters do and especially if the rent is low which it seems to be!  

Personally, I think it is a disservice to the timeshare owner who has his capital invested in the timeshare and pays often a higher maintenance fee too.  

Only a very small percentage of people buy resale so most people have paid a lot of money to buy that timeshare but that will change because of these forums.  :whoopie:


----------



## MidlifeTraveler (Sep 4, 2006)

My goodness, look what I've startted!  You've been busy while I was away!

PerryM, I don't think you're giving the owners a fair chance.  Someone had said earlier that these salespeople play up the "everybody wants to go to Orlando thing" and this is very true - but then they should also disclose that there are 8 bajillion units out there.  Will that hapen, not likely - but just don't say anything!  What's wrong with selling on the merits of the resort without hyping incorrect echange information.  Why do you think that's unfair?

I like your analogy of the BYOB party - except RCI takes advantage of people who are "drunk on vacation" - that's the bottom line.  

This thread has lost sight of the issue - don't rent other people's exchanges.  Perry, seems like you think RCI has the right to do this.  Iconnections makes a good point as well - people are more likely to destroy what they do not own so back to what I said earlier - everybody loses.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 4, 2006)

*Points, like Booze, make the party work*

Emmy and MidLife,

In my whimsical and sarcastic depicture of our out of control legal system, I’m pointing out that debits = credits.  If 1 M reservations were deposited during the last 24 months (2 years past check-in date on reservation) then less than 1 M were exchanged – there is always going to be folks like me who can’t take a vacation during that time.

Notice that there was NOT 1 M + 1 exchanges taken; debits would not equal credits in that case.  Which means that there are leftovers and if we assume that 1% of the folks didn’t exchange, for whatever reason, more than enough reservations are available for exchange.

*To the Point:*
I’ve postulated, here long time ago, that RCI converts all week reservations into RCI Points internally.  This would be the efficient way of doing business.  This means that reservations are not flagged for “Exchange only” and “Rentals” but *RCI Points are*.

This is a huge difference:
If 100 B RCI Points entered RCI, in all kinds of ways either Weeks or RCI Points, and 10 B Points are flagged as for external rental, then RCI can grab ANY reservations it wants to fulfill the 10 B Points – any.

Once this is pointed out, there is nothing further to discuss – RCI did nothing wrong but use efficient accounting techniques.  The reservation you turn over to RCI Weeks today for exchange might very well be used for renting for cash at RCI discretion - it's their company and not the courts.


----------



## 1sland (Sep 4, 2006)

*With Bluegreen we are forced to have RCI membership*



> Nobody is forcing anyone to join RCI.


 
Every year we have to pay a fee to Bluegreen and they GIVE us a free membership to RCI. You have no choice as far as I know. You cannot stop paying this fee. They force you to be a member of RCI. Of course, you don't have to use it.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 4, 2006)

*BG is responsible*

1sland,

But who’s fault it that?  RCI is simply doing what companies do – try to get an advantage over the competition by forming alliances with other organizations to exclusively carry their product – it’s done all the time by all kinds of companies.

The developer or HOA or both have decided to do this, not RCI.  Sounds like BG has a cozy relationship with RCI and BG controls this relationship.


----------



## "Roger" (Sep 4, 2006)

MidlifeTraveler said:
			
		

> .... Someone had said earlier that these salespeople play up the "everybody wants to go to Orlando thing" and this is very true - but then they should also disclose that there are 8 bajillion units out there.  Will that hapen, not likely - but just don't say anything!  What's wrong with selling on the merits of the resort without hyping incorrect echange information....


I have been advocating for years that RCI (and II) should have to reveal the trading power given to their units (much like they do with points).  Since you haven't been privy to the debate, Carolinian insists that the exchange companies should not do this in order to protect us from the developers.  His argument is that the developers will then negotiate deals with the exchange companies to get higher trading power.

Sad to say, but I think that you are perfect example of how hiding trading power is done to benefit the developers (and not you the buyer).  They can talk up "three bedroom, GC, red week, etc.," not telling you that your week 44 is worth not much.

As far as developers getting higher values, Carolinian is, in essence, saying that RCI (and II) would give free subsidies to the developers.  If the exchange companies are as greedy as everyone says, I don't see them giving away free subsidies.

What really hurt you was the secrecy within which the Weeks system operates?  To whose benefit?  Certainly not yours. 

I'm sorry about the sad lesson that you are learning about the shady operation of the Weeks system.  Good luck.


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 4, 2006)

1sland said:
			
		

> Every year we have to pay a fee to Bluegreen and they GIVE us a free membership to RCI. You have no choice as far as I know. You cannot stop paying this fee. They force you to be a member of RCI. Of course, you don't have to use it.


Bluegreen is not the only system that pays the exchange fees for you in your yearly maintenance fee, from what I understand. This is what is so wrong, imho. You don't even have the option then to opt out of the exchange company if it doesn't work for you. We should have that choice!

Right now, if you buy a Marriott, they will pay your first year to belong to II but after that it is up to you if you want to stay a member or not and I hope that will not change when they go over to their internal reservation system. I would be very unhappy if we have to belong to II.

What happened to the OP "Change the X-change" and his plans for a new system? Has he disappeared? We need an exchange system that is fair for the exchanger and not to line the pockets of the exchange companies and the developers, who sell you a dream that you can travel anywhere in the world with the week you just bought. What a lie that is!


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 4, 2006)

There have been many reports on these boards of PRIME weeks for rent through RCI outlets.  The excuse that they are just the leftovers doesn't hold water.  Indeed at one of my resorts, where a former manager figured out the codes (confirmed by Bootleg) to tell which were rentals on the RCI inbound reports, we looked to see what weeks were being rented by RCI to the general public.  Guess what?  There was not a single deep offseason week among the rentals.  Every one was at a time that the resort was normally full!

And BTW, all jurors are not ''bumpkins''!

And the plaintiffs could add to your scenario that what RCI is really doing is sneaking some of the bottles of booze brought to the party by invitees who expected it to be used at the party out the back door and selling them at the local shot house instead.  Oh, they did tell you they reserved the right to do this.  It was printed in tiny letters in Mongolian on the back of the invitation.





			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> I would hope that RCI would frame this whole idea of exchanging as a BYOB party (Bring Your Own Booze).
> 
> At a BYOB party you bring a bottle of booze, be it moonshine, wine, tequila, premixed margaritas, whatever, and the party works fine.  Everyone gets to sample another type of drink and everyone leaves with a hangover – who could ask for more?
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 4, 2006)

Roger, you are only taking bits and pieces of my argument.  I have no problem with revealing trading power, as long as the formula for establishing it and all of the data to see that the formula is worked fairly and honestly are also made public.  I do have a problem with revealing the results while keeping the formula secret.  You seem to favor keeping the formula and underlying data secret.

Any thing RCI makes public is bent,whether it is season color codes or RCI Points values.  Why? Because developers politick them to rig the system in their favor, and RCI routinely hides the formulas and data to support it, claiming these are ''proprietary''.

What one has to consider are the motive to cheat and the opportunity.

Having a secret forumula and data creat an opportunity to cheat.  Revealing that formula and data takes away the opportunity.

Having a secret result (like the current Weeks trading power) takes away the motive, because there is no point in rigging something that will be secret anyway.  A published result creates a motive.

The RCI Points system thus has both the motive and opportunity for RCI and the developers to cook the books.   RCI Weeks has the opportunity but no motive.

The real problem with the developer overhyping the Orlando week owned by the OP is NOT the secret part of the system (trading power) but the published part - the season codes.  Every single week in overbuilt places like Orlando and the Canary Islands as red?  That's laughable, and RCI's own availibility tables in the European version of their directory even show it!  If RCI were honest enough to show the weeks there that should be blue or white as such, then developers could not mislead buyers.  But then the developers would scream.  





			
				Roger said:
			
		

> I have been advocating for years that RCI (and II) should have to reveal the trading power given to their units (much like they do with points).  Since you haven't been privy to the debate, Carolinian insists that the exchange companies should not do this in order to protect us from the developers.  His argument is that the developers will then negotiate deals with the exchange companies to get higher trading power.
> 
> Sad to say, but I think that you are perfect example of how hiding trading power is done to benefit the developers (and not you the buyer).  They can talk up "three bedroom, GC, red week, etc.," not telling you that your week 44 is worth not much.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 4, 2006)

Sold out resorts have no timeshare weeks to sell, and any incidentals they may sell (and some resorts do not even sell those) are not going to make up for the expenses of someone staying in a unit.  A sold out resort is dollars ahead with a unit sitting empty that an RCI renter occupying it.




			
				iconnections said:
			
		

> At one time, these resorts stood empty. That may not have been ideal either because the resort hopes to sell something to these people who rent there from RCI or II but who is paying the bill for all the wear and tear that the condo suffers? It is the timeshare owner! What do we get out of this rental deal?


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 4, 2006)

They would be using accounting techniques reminiscent of the old Savings and Loans, or Enron. . .

The system you postulate has a clear conflict of interest.  It would allow the exchange company to skim the best to put in its own pocket.

Actually you seem to be somewhat close to the mark on part of the problem.
When RCI does a Points Partner exchange, they assert that they can use the points to take any inventory they want availible to a Points member to rent to pay for the Points Partner inventory.  This includes using the downright fraudulent crossover grids to take prime Weeks inventory for a fraction of its real value, remove it from the Weeks system so Weeks members cannot get it for exchange, and then rent it to the general public.  This is the scam the lawsuit needs to bring to a screeching halt.  I'm sorry if you think that this is an honest or fair way of doing business.

Many of the notices I get of settlement of class action lawsuits mention some practice that the defendant has agreed to be barred from continuing to do.  When I get my notice on the RCI case, I am not going to care whether I get 47 cents or $1.63 or 10% off of an exchange.  I am going to be looking for the acts that RCI is going to be barred from doing in the future.  The plaintiffs seem to be right on target with the injunctive relief they are seeking.





			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> Emmy and MidLife,
> 
> In my whimsical and sarcastic depicture of our out of control legal system, I’m pointing out that debits = credits.  If 1 M reservations were deposited during the last 24 months (2 years past check-in date on reservation) then less than 1 M were exchanged – there is always going to be folks like me who can’t take a vacation during that time.
> 
> ...


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 4, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Sold out resorts have no timeshare weeks to sell, and any incidentals they may sell (and some resorts do not even sell those) are not going to make up for the expenses of someone staying in a unit. A sold out resort is dollars ahead with a unit sitting empty that an RCI renter occupying it.


Steve, I really meant that some of the resorts may have a restaurant, a little market or a Spa on the premises and the resort was counting on these customers but they won't come if the condo is empty.

I know that our little independent resort rents our condos out but the proceeds go in the HOA fund for the benefit of all timeshare owners! This is what is fair and this is what will happen if you get a good HOA board that is on the ball with owners in charge and want what is best for their timeshare resort. This is what all timeshare resorts should strive for eventually, when they are sold out.

If the developer is still involved, then he would have the biggest say because he is spending the money but once the resort is sold out, the majority vote should go to the owners, if there are enough owners to do this thankless job. That may be another problem. Most people do not even go to the meetings or bother to vote but this mainly happens when everything is running well and people have no complaints.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 4, 2006)

*RCI/II should just go to a basic formula*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> Sold out resorts have no timeshare weeks to sell, and any incidentals they may sell (and some resorts do not even sell those) are not going to make up for the expenses of someone staying in a unit.  A sold out resort is dollars ahead with a unit sitting empty that an RCI renter occupying it.



More subsidizes from other RCI depositors for what are basically worthless weeks. If they are better off empty then let the HOA/other resort OWNERS pay the price NOT the owners who deposit with RCI thinking they will get back an equal trade. But they can't since these zero value weeks are accepted by II/RCI and then those owners claim better weeks leaving the trash behind. 

I guess it would be better if RCI/II just said we won't take white or blue weeks except for a white or blue week trade. You can trade at the level you deposit or below but no trades up.  Period.  Then there would be no question. If a blue week owner sees a red week for rent they know they had no right to it in any case.  If a 1 bedroom depositor sees a 2 bedroom for rent they know it wasn't ever available to them in a straight one for one trade.  If they want that upgrade they have to pay.  It would eliminate all this carping about what should be traded for what. 

Lets give that as an answer to the almighty class action boondoggle.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 5, 2006)

*CPA's trump rumors any day*

Carolinian,

RCI can use any accounting system they wish to account for debits and credits of reservations – independent CPA firms that audit RCI would not sign off on any suspicious accounting practices.  The rumors about crazy exchanges and whatever can’t trump the CPA’s signing off of on RCI’s accounting practices.  I’ll believe the CPAs over vague rumors.

If my hypothesis is correct about RCI assigning either trading power (TP) values or RCI Point values to all space banked (SB) weeks then the following would happen (Let’s use TP):

I SB 1 2BR XYZ Red week for 75 TPs

I SB 1 1BR XYZ Red week for 55 TPs

I SB 1 South African 2BR Red Peninsula week for 80 TPs and then roll it over to my RCI Points account for 44,500 RCI Points.

I already have 150,000 RCI Points from other deposits.

RCI now has 210 TPs on deposit and 194,500 RCI Points in the sysem

I call up and exchange 140,000 RCI Points for 2 round trip tickets to Maui.  The tickets cost RCI $600 each or RCI ows American Airlines $1,200 cash.

RCI now has 210 TPs on deposit and 54,500 RCI points and an IOU of $1,200 due AA.

RCI determines that it needs to rent the 2BR XYZ and my Peninsula which relates to 155 TPs.

RCI Rents the two weeks for $1,300.

RCI now has 210 – 155 = 55 TPs (the 1BR XYZ Red week) and 54,500 RCI Points in the system.

RCI used its best judgment how to raise the cash needed to pay for my airline tickets.

Of course, there are 2 folks who space banked weeks and want 2 exchanges.  RCI has plenty of “float” of other space-banked weeks and then a number of reservations will never be exchanged, as was my case.

I just don’t see how this violates anyone’s rights or privileges of belonging to RCI and agreeing to their practices (including their accounting practices).  But, it doesn’t take much to confuse bumpkins – substitute pot roast for meatloaf at lunch and mass confusion could result – who knows what they will believe in that state of mind.

I see no whistle blower articles in the press, just rumors upon rumors that seem to then become established facts.  

I’ve said it before; I think RCI made a huge mistake to venture into the airline ticket exchange business, but Cendant ownes ticket companies and surprise, surprise, RCI got into that business too.  (It already had the travel agent part but not reservations for airline tickets).

But it’s RCI’s company and they can do whatever they want.  If laws are broken then penalties will be imposed.  Until then only the lawyers involved will benefit from all this speculation.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 5, 2006)

Except, that like anything RCI makes public, the season codes are bent.  Every week in overbuilt Orlando or the Canary Islands red??? What a laugh!
And size alone doesn't really matter.  A hotel unit in London or New York is always going to be far more valuable than the largest unit availible in Orlando.

The factors that determine what is an equal trade are supply and demand. Period.

I know I have had blue and white week trades in Europe that I have been tickled to give my red week elsewhere for.   There are blue and white weeks in Europe that have far better supply/demand dynamics that most weeks in Orlando, which are aribtrarily all called red.







			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> More subsidizes from other RCI depositors for what are basically worthless weeks. If they are better off empty then let the HOA/other resort OWNERS pay the price NOT the owners who deposit with RCI thinking they will get back an equal trade. But they can't since these zero value weeks are accepted by II/RCI and then those owners claim better weeks leaving the trash behind.
> 
> I guess it would be better if RCI/II just said we won't take white or blue weeks except for a white or blue week trade. You can trade at the level you deposit or below but no trades up.  Period.  Then there would be no question. If a blue week owner sees a red week for rent they know they had no right to it in any case.  If a 1 bedroom depositor sees a 2 bedroom for rent they know it wasn't ever available to them in a straight one for one trade.  If they want that upgrade they have to pay.  It would eliminate all this carping about what should be traded for what.
> 
> Lets give that as an answer to the almighty class action boondoggle.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 5, 2006)

You still make that contention after what just happened with Sunterra's (former) accountants, Grant Thornton?  If you haven't kept up, funky accounting is why Sunterra has been delisted from the stock exchange.

And can you point me to ANY certification by any accountant that the Points tables meet any objective criteria for fairness???  Particularly the crossover grids for taking Weeks inventory for Points members (or RCI itself)?

And it's hardly ''vague rumor'' when you can go right to RCI's tables of its numbers racket called RCI Points and see the fraudulent numbers in black and white.

RCI can obviously take Points inventory to pay for a Points Partner reservation.  That is part of their system, and Points members do get some benefit to go with the disadvantage.  RCI has absolutely no legitimate business coming over and stealing Weeks inventory to do so.  Weeks members have absolutely nothing to do with Points Partner reservations.  To make it worse, RCI has cooked the books to deliberately undervalue prime Weeks inventory on the crossover grids, meaning that they can take our stuff and makea a big profit off of it.  In fact they can make a lot more from stealing our inventory than they could by taking Points inventory.

Maybe one positive outcome of the lawsuit would be a total decoupling of Weeks from Points.  Let Points see if it can survive on its own two feet without raiding our inventory! 





			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> Carolinian,
> 
> RCI can use any accounting system they wish to account for debits and credits of reservations – independent CPA firms that audit RCI would not sign off on any suspicious accounting practices.  The rumors about crazy exchanges and whatever can’t trump the CPA’s signing off of on RCI’s accounting practices.  I’ll believe the CPAs over vague rumors.
> 
> ...


----------



## MidlifeTraveler (Sep 5, 2006)

Okay - I've learned a lot for you all anf Thank You.

My next question is - how do you determine the trading power of a week (before purchse  ) if it's simply "red" and "red" is not the same everywhere.

Also, I've heard that the South Africa units bring a good trade - but why?  THAT MANY people want to go to South Africa?!


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 5, 2006)

*No absolutes*



			
				MidlifeTraveler said:
			
		

> Okay - I've learned a lot for you all anf Thank You.
> 
> My next question is - how do you determine the trading power of a week (before purchse  ) if it's simply "red" and "red" is not the same everywhere.
> 
> Also, I've heard that the South Africa units bring a good trade - but why?  THAT MANY people want to go to South Africa?!



You can't detirmine trading power as it is the great unknown.  You can try to find what a week has been able to do in the past from other users or establish todays value vs whatever is currently in available inventory with a search using that week but neither approach gives any guarantee of it's value going forward. The value is kept a secret on purpose (see Carolinian's theories on that above) so you have to have faith that the percieved value will reflect the trade value you desire. The red/blue/white is only one part and changes with the region you are looking at.  Then you add in the shades of red and any value to that ranking for establishing trade value is at best minimal.  Although it can safely be said that white and blue time is low value (but may still offer some great vacations so what does the low value mean?).  

If you think that is buying into a crap shoot you are correct.  It is a system based on the buyer being uninformed and their built up hopes of success. I prefer a system that tells me what the values are - right or wrong in some eyes at least I know what they are - both for my ownership and the resorts I will be trading into.


----------



## "Roger" (Sep 5, 2006)

MidlifeTraveler said:
			
		

> ...My next question is - how do you determine the trading power of a week (before purchse  ) if it's simply "red" and "red" is not the same everywhere....


The bottom line is that trading power is kept secret so that developers can disguise the worth of their units.  (You've learned about that yourself the hard way.  Sorry about that.)

As far as I am concerned, it is no accident that Hyatt, Disney, and Hilton, who have reputations at stake, don't want to have their brand names tainted by this slimey aspect of timesharing (actually, they refuse to even use the name "timesharing" and choose to offer "vacation ownership" plans).  They offer points.  This tells prospective owners how much a unit is worth compared to other units within their systems and what an owner can expect in return for the purchase of one of their units.

Your options are to watch TUG for a while, learn the ins and outs of what has value, what does not, and then use this knowledge to get a leg up on other timeshare purchasers (let them eat cake -- it is their fault for not having done their homework) or join one of the points programs.  

If you chose the former, be careful.  Trading power turns out to be trickier than first meets the eye.  One pitfall is that according to the laws of "supply and demand" if you happen to deposit your unit at the same time many other people deposit (perhaps the developer deposited a group of unsold units, or, maintenence fees were due leading to many owners to deposit at about the same time), the value of your deposit drops due to nothing that you did.

Obviously, my own preference is for a system that treats all buyers equally (and does not give advantages to those who have quasi-inside information -- spent a couple months studying the ins and outs of trading power on a board like this).  Whatever you decide, good luck.


----------



## Spence (Sep 5, 2006)

MidlifeTraveler said:
			
		

> My next question is - how do you determine the trading power of a week (before purchse  ) if it's simply "red" and "red" is not the same everywhere.


Red does not equal Red.  You MUST use some common sense to know if it is really red and a good trader.  Supply vs Demand is the key.  Orlando just after school starts in September, who are they kidding, the resorts are empty.





			
				MidlifeTraveler said:
			
		

> Also, I've heard that the South Africa units bring a good trade - but why?  THAT MANY people want to go to South Africa?!


Best asked on the South Africa forum, but there are many South Africans that do vacation, there are MANY Europeans who do vacation in South Africa.  For several years there were very favorable exchange rates with the South African Rand that made purchase and maintenance fees very affordable.  For quite a while any SA week traded very well in RCI.  I got many Manhattan Clubs with SA blue weeks.  The power of many SA weeks seems to have diminished.  Visit the SA forum.


----------



## MidlifeTraveler (Sep 5, 2006)

> For quite a while any SA week traded very well in RCI.  I got many Manhattan Clubs with SA blue weeks.  The power of many SA weeks seems to have diminished.  Visit the SA forum.



Yes - I did check the SA forum and will continue to monitor.  When I bought OLCC there were many who tried to convince me to buy a cheap SA unit and trade into OLCC each year.  My instinct told me the balloon would eventually burst on that and I'd be REALLY stuck.  I'm glad I didn't do it then - and I'll have to continue to watch those boards. Plus, I wasn't comfortable buying something without actually seeing it first.

 Looks like I'm in for another 2 years research!


----------



## Spence (Sep 5, 2006)

MidlifeTraveler said:
			
		

> > For quite a while any SA week traded very well in RCI.  I got many Manhattan Clubs with SA blue weeks.  The power of many SA weeks seems to have diminished.  Visit the SA forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - I did check the SA forum and will continue to monitor.  When I bought OLCC there were many who tried to convince me to buy a cheap SA unit and trade into OLCC each year.  My instinct told me the balloon would eventually burst on that and I'd be REALLY stuck.  I'm glad I didn't do it then - and I'll have to continue to watch those boards. Plus, I wasn't comfortable buying something without actually seeing it first.  Looks like I'm in for another 2 years research!


 Though diminished, any of my Red/White/Blue SA weeks would have traded better than your OLCC.  I've bought more timeshares than you can shake a stick at, all sight unseen.  You don't need to see it if you've researched it properly.


----------



## sfwilshire (Sep 5, 2006)

And even if you could figure out the magic trading power of a week, there is no guarantee that it won't change over time. 

The key IMO is to buy in a much desired area that is not overbuilt. Buy a season that will be in high demand. Buy a decent resort with good management. Then hope for the best.

I just try to buy at a price where I can get my money back if the resort doesn't work out for me as I'd planned.

Sheila


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 5, 2006)

Indeed trading power does change because supply and demand are dynamic.
That is one of the advantages of a system of flexible trading power values like RCI Weeks over a system of frozen numbers like RCI Points.





			
				sfwilshire said:
			
		

> And even if you could figure out the magic trading power of a week, there is no guarantee that it won't change over time.
> 
> The key IMO is to buy in a much desired area that is not overbuilt. Buy a season that will be in high demand. Buy a decent resort with good management. Then hope for the best.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 5, 2006)

When I visited South Africa, I did not run into another American, but there were LOTS of European tourists.




			
				MidlifeTraveler said:
			
		

> Okay - I've learned a lot for you all anf Thank You.
> 
> My next question is - how do you determine the trading power of a week (before purchse  ) if it's simply "red" and "red" is not the same everywhere.
> 
> Also, I've heard that the South Africa units bring a good trade - but why?  THAT MANY people want to go to South Africa?!


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 5, 2006)

The worst combination is a system that publishes the result but uses a secret system to come up with that number.  That is a recipe for insider dealing and cooking the books.  The key to whether any published number system is honest or not is whether they also publish the formula for establishing the numbers and the data to allow anyone to check behind them.
Without that, the chances of a dishonest system are far greater than with a system that publishes neither.






			
				Roger said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that trading power is kept secret so that developers can disguise the worth of their units.  (You've learned about that yourself the hard way.  Sorry about that.)
> 
> As far as I am concerned, it is no accident that Hyatt, Disney, and Hilton, who have reputations at stake, don't want to have their brand names tainted by this slimey aspect of timesharing (actually, they refuse to even use the name "timesharing" and choose to offer "vacation ownership" plans).  They offer points.  This tells prospective owners how much a unit is worth compared to other units within their systems and what an owner can expect in return for the purchase of one of their units.
> 
> ...


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 5, 2006)

*Advantage: Sellers*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> Indeed trading power does change because supply and demand are dynamic.
> That is one of the advantages of a system of flexible trading power values like RCI Weeks over a system of frozen numbers like RCI Points.



And the advantage to an owner/buyer is....... ???


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 5, 2006)

timeos2 said:
			
		

> And the advantage to an owner/buyer is....... ???



Accurate exchange power.

Heck, a rigid system like RCI Points cannot even adjust when Thanksgiving falls on week 46.  In those years, they still give the holiday bump to week 47 even when it isn't Thanksgiving!


----------



## "Roger" (Sep 5, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> The worst combination is a system that publishes the result but uses a secret system to come up with that number.  That is a recipe for insider dealing and cooking the books.  The key to whether any published number system is honest or not is whether they also publish the formula for establishing the numbers and the data to allow anyone to check behind them.
> Without that, the chances of a dishonest system are far greater than with a system that publishes neither.


All of this has been played out before.  If you read this thread (start toward about post 54 - interesting reading), you will find Carolinian making the same claim.  

Supply and Demand?

In the end, neither he nor anyone knows how "supply and demand" is determined within Walmart (does that make Walmart the "worst combination" - published prices but a secret system by which Walmart determines those prices) nor... within the Weeks system.  (He offered a simple formula which he claimed was how supply and demand could be used by RCI, but one which upon examination either is not what Weeks uses or is TOTALLY prejudicial against newer, larger resorts.)

I am afraid it is much easier to say that the trading power of Weeks is determined by "supply and demand" than it is to figure out what that really means.  I am sure that every exchange company has its own "secret" way by which they determine what they consider to be supply and demand.  End of story.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 5, 2006)

*Supply and Demand have the opposite affect!*

Supply and demand; a catchy phrase but what exactly are we talking about.  Lets take the same exact resort, like Park Plaza, which is II, RCI, and RCI Points affiliated (So what’s in your resorts exchange wallet?)

Park Plaza Week:
As an owner at Park Plaza I can book my Prime week any week of the year – I always book week 51 or 52 and we either use the rooms or rent them out for 4 times MF.  I can “roll forward” my week to next year or “borrow” a week from next year this year.  I can cancel my reservation up to 30 days before check-in and “roll forward” to next year.  Why doesn’t your resort do this?

Anyway, my trading power is tremendous – 4 times MF will easily pay for a week in Maui with a $600 MF.  I have the ultimate in exchange – heck, I saw a great plasma TV at Sam’s today that we might buy with the rent money.

II Week:
If I want to exchange in II Park Plaza will deposit a generic ski week for me.  Not the Trading Power (TP) of cash but I should have some good TP.

RCI Week:
Ditto that of II.

Notice that I have no idea in the world what the TP is – I can only guess.  However, my personal experience and others here on TUG indicate that the following happen:

Supply and demand figures for past years is kept in the RCI and II computers.  *However this ONLY applies to a single week deposit*.  If 2 identical weeks are deposited, like week 52, the second TP is lower than the first – Supply and Demand in action.  Basically folks who deposit a holiday week late have lower and lower TP until that TP is lower than a week 50 for instance.  This is exactly the opposite affect that was intended!  Week 50 has more TP than a week 52 - nuts!

That’s why I can’t compare my exchanges to another Park Plaza owner who deposited the same week as mine – his has lower TP than mine!

As a trading tactic I might actually have more TP in a lesser sought after week than a high demand week – is this nuts or what?  But that’s what you get when you embrace Supply and Demand.

RCI Points:
The Park Plaza has a Points Calendar and I know how much RCI Points I’ll get to deposit a week and I know exactly how many Points it takes to get into any week.  I can look up other RCI Point resorts and determine, with absolute certainty, if I can get into a week – if it’s available.  I can Bank and Borrow Points and combine with other timeshares we have converted to RCI Points.  There is no guess work, no secret formulas, no ever changing supply and demand to make the next guy’s deposited week worth any less.

Conclusion:
Supply and Demand result in TP that changes by the second and is secret and you really don’t know what the heck you can get.  You place an ongoing search and haven’t the foggiest idea if you qualify for the exchange.

*RCI Points is above board*, no vacillating TP, just honest to goodness Point Calendars that can change each year to reflect shifting usage but not enough to threaten stability of usage.

To claim that Weeks is a superior system to Points is fall victim of too many sales presentations.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 6, 2006)

*RCI gets secret power right but sure screws up points*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> Accurate exchange power.
> 
> Heck, a rigid system like RCI Points cannot even adjust when Thanksgiving falls on week 46.  In those years, they still give the holiday bump to week 47 even when it isn't Thanksgiving!



And you know you have the correct exchange power because.... ?? 

(Hint: RCI/II says so! No troublesome charts to read.)


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 6, 2006)

Wal-Mart is a retail business, whose prices are held in check by competition by others selling similar goods.  That is a totally different situation from a quasi monopoly exchange service (yes, there is competition in dual affiliated resorts, but these are a rather small minority).  You are comparing apples and oranges.




			
				Roger said:
			
		

> All of this has been played out before.  If you read this thread (start toward about post 54 - interesting reading), you will find Carolinian making the same claim.
> 
> Supply and Demand?
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 6, 2006)

RCI Points is ANYTHING but above board!  Its numbers are often rigged to favor certain groups over others.  Developers still in sales often have their resorts overpointed, as do overbuilt areas, while location resorts get systematically hosed and the term ''sold out resort'' has a sinister double meaning in the corrupt world of RCI Points.  While I can see why points would be to the benfit of someone owning in an overbuilt or otherwise overpointed area and they might be vocal in defending it, that would not be true for those owning in underpointed areas.

Points calendars shifting?  Paper and ink printing every two years screams frozen numbers.  And how many resort numbers in the Points system have been changed at all since Points started??????  Can you name any at all???? Yes, they did do some window dressing tweaking of the crossover grids, leaving them almost as corrupt as they started, but what about actual resort numbers in Points resorts?  If there are any such Points resorts whose numbers have shifted at all, does it take two hands to count them or can you do it on one?  Shifting?  Not!

Then there is the other limitation of paper and ink publishing of points numbers - overaveraging. They have only so much space so they have to jam too many dissimilar weeks together.  This means they say a mid-August week 33 on the Outer Banks has the same value as a late October week 43 of the same size at the same resort, for example.  Talk about nuts, that arrangement is the whole fruit cake!  A mid-August week will sell or rent for several times what a late October week will, and has a whole lot more trading power in an honest system like RCI Weeks, but the corrupt numbers racket of RCI Points gives them the exact same point value.  This isn't some theoretical fluke of extra heavy deposits of a prime week vs. light deposits of a lesser week as you postulate.  It is designed into the Points system and there all the time.

It only makes sense under Supply and Demand that a late deposit will have less value.  There is less time to find a match, which reduces demand.  Last minute inventory is devalued inventory in many circumstances in the leisure travel (but often not business travel) industry.  That is exactly the same reason that it takes less trading power to get an exchange in the 45 day window.





			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> Supply and demand; a catchy phrase but what exactly are we talking about.  Lets take the same exact resort, like Park Plaza, which is II, RCI, and RCI Points affiliated (So what’s in your resorts exchange wallet?)
> 
> Park Plaza Week:
> As an owner at Park Plaza I can book my Prime week any week of the year – I always book week 51 or 52 and we either use the rooms or rent them out for 4 times MF.  I can “roll forward” my week to next year or “borrow” a week from next year this year.  I can cancel my reservation up to 30 days before check-in and “roll forward” to next year.  Why doesn’t your resort do this?
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 6, 2006)

timeos2 said:
			
		

> And you know you have the correct exchange power because.... ??
> 
> (Hint: RCI/II says so! No troublesome charts to read.)



As long as the exchange company does not have its own hand in the till, there is no motive to put their thumb on the scales.  Or course, that all changes if they start, say, renting out exchange deposits to the general public to put the money in their own pocket, which is why such exchange company rentals needs to be stopped ASAP.  It is a huge conflict of interest that is anti-customer.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 6, 2006)

Your theory flies in the face of the facts as set out on t/s boards by RCI employees Bootleg and Anon, who both have posted that RCI puts some of the prime week exchange deposits into their rental pool immediately when they are deposited by members, and these deposits have nothing to do with cruises, points partners, etc.

Also, you seem to overlook one very important aspect of RCI's business that makes them different from most companies.  The products of most companies are purchased or produced with their own capital, which gives them no particular obligation to their customers on how they run the business.

An exchange company is very different.  They do not obtain their products (weeks) by using their own capital to purchase it or produce it.  Developers may produce some of it by building the resorts and bulkbanking weeks from them.  Most of an exchange company's inventory comes from its members purchasing it (buying the week and paying the m/f) and then entrusting it to the exchange company by depositing it for exchange purposes.  An exchange company betrays that trust when it rents that inventory to non-members without full disclosure and knowing acceptance by members.  Fine print in th boiler plate just does not do that.  RCI, like the old Savings and Loans, is betraying its depositors.

All of this is why I have sometimes described the relationship between an exchange company and its depositors as a quasi-fiduciary relationship giving them more duties and obligations toward the depositors than an ordinary business would have toward its customers.  Indeed, this is taken a step further in the RCI class action lawsuit from what I understand.  I am told that the lawsuit argues that RCI has a fiduciary duty to its depositor/members which is breached by their rental policies.  I hope they nail them good on that one!









			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> Emmy and MidLife,
> 
> In my whimsical and sarcastic depicture of our out of control legal system, I’m pointing out that debits = credits.  If 1 M reservations were deposited during the last 24 months (2 years past check-in date on reservation) then less than 1 M were exchanged – there is always going to be folks like me who can’t take a vacation during that time.
> 
> ...


----------



## "Roger" (Sep 6, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> As long as the exchange company does not have its own hand in the till, there is no motive to put their thumb on the scales.  Or course, that all changes if they start, say, renting out exchange deposits to the general public to put the money in their own pocket, which is why such exchange company rentals needs to be stopped ASAP.  It is a huge conflict of interest that is anti-customer.


I presume that you are talking about the Weeks system here.  At least in theory (and maybe in practice) an exchange company could, on average, give its customers 5% less in trade value than what they put in.  This would allow them to skim off the top and make extra income by renting off some of the top properties.  (Good point about what can happen within the Weeks system!)

In points, Hyatt, for example, has to give the depositer the same value that the Hyatt owner put in.  So too for Disney, Hilton, and the other points systems.  At least the customer can see if they are getting the value of what they put into the system back.

Openness is good.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 6, 2006)

*No big deal*

Carolinian,

I doubt very much if fellow TUGGERS have access to the internal accounting system used by RCI.  My explanation is just as valid as all the rumors floating around – they can’t be used as an established truth and then build from that.  We can easily transfer existing techniques, like RCI Points, to other areas of RCI – they came from RCI and are for real.

Let’s face it, the lawyers filing the class actions are looking for 12 bumpkins to make millions of dollars – we all that that.  We also know that 12 bumpkins are not hard to find – look at the Mickey Dee’s hot coffee lawsuit to find 12 bumpkins.  "79-year old lady orders hot coffee, Mickey Dee's sells her hot coffee, she puts hot coffee foam cup between legs in her grandsons car and it spills.  Bumpkins award $3 M for her stupidity."

That’s what this country's legal system has sunk to and RCI might indeed be found guilty or the finding goes against them – big deal.  RCI will be light ahead of those bumpkins and simply pass on any cost to it’s members.

I can just see a verdict “each RCI member will get a $5 coupon as compensation”, of course it will cost each RCI member $50 in legal costs – it’s just the cost of doing business in America anymore.

That will show RCI!


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 6, 2006)

Most posters do not have access to RCI's internal systems, but you seem to forget that Bootleg is/was an RCI employee and DID have knowledge of and access to their systems.  Anon posted mostly on TimeshareTalk, but he was in the same situation.  They were both in a position to know, and you are just guessing.

And BTW, I am sure many Tuggers have served on jury duty.  You are saying bad things about them are you?






			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> Carolinian,
> 
> I doubt very much if fellow TUGGERS have access to the internal accounting system used by RCI.  My explanation is just as valid as all the rumors floating around – they can’t be used as an established truth and then build from that.  We can easily transfer existing techniques, like RCI Points, to other areas of RCI – they came from RCI and are for real.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 6, 2006)

Yeah, and when a Points members puts in a mid-August Outer Banks week 33and takes out a late October Outer Banks week 43 for the same number of points, they are getting seriously shortchanged even though the points values are the same.  They are NOT giving the same value back in such situations that the member put in.  Far from it, in fact.

Overaveraging is bad!






			
				Roger said:
			
		

> I presume that you are talking about the Weeks system here.  At least in theory (and maybe in practice) an exchange company could, on average, give its customers 5% less in trade value than what they put in.  This would allow them to skim off the top and make extra income by renting off some of the top properties.  (Good point about what can happen within the Weeks system!)
> 
> In points, Hyatt, for example, has to give the depositer the same value that the Hyatt owner put in.  So too for Disney, Hilton, and the other points systems.  At least the customer can see if they are getting the value of what they put into the system back.
> 
> Openness is good.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 6, 2006)

*The voodoo drums*

Rumors are rumors - using rumors to whip up a class action is done all the time by the lawyers - just look at the silicone implants and the massive awards.  Only after the awards did many scientific findings point out the false assumptions used by the courts.  Our bumpkins were shown voodoo science and their emotions took over.

Voodoo accounting seems to be what is whipping up folks with RCI - the independent auditors have found no accounting irregularities - that should be all that is needed over voodoo accounting.

My reaction to all these voodoo statements is that we all know that RCI will continue their business and if there are any guilty or verdicts against RCI, RCI will simply out maneuver the courts and pass on all costs to us the members.

We all now this, yet the voodoo drums pound on.

P.S.
If I’ve offended any bumpkins, I sincerely apologize.  (You know who you are)
Bumpkins are a subset of jurors; I've never assumed that TUG members belong to that subset - others might infer this, not me.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 6, 2006)

Rumors?

Bootleg was (and perhaps still is) an RCI employee.  He went into several Tuggers accounts to help them with matters.  The fact that he was able to do so shows that he was/is exactly what he said he was.  With access to RCI's system, when he says that he can track weeks deposited by members for exchange not connected to points partners, cruises, etc. that are deposited immmediately by RCI into the rental pool, as he did, we are getting this directly from the primary source with personal knowledge of the facts, not from rumor.  The fact that the information doesn't fit with your theories does not make it rumor.

The same is true with Anon.  When he first started to post on TimeshareTalk as an RCI employee, the site owner decided to check out his bonafides by asking a series of specific questions about his own RCI account that only someone with access to RCI's computers could answer.  Anon came back with all of the correct answers.  He was what he said he was.  Again, he is a primary source with actual knowledge of the facts, not mere rumor.  

I am sorry if these primary sources with actual knowledge of the facts spoil your mere theories.

Further, I do not know of any connection between either Anon or Bootleg and any of the class action lawyers.  Do you, since you have made this allegation?

As to voodoo accounting, this is more what Sunterra (and probably RCI) has used to try to justify the status quo.  It failed with Sunterra, and it will fail with RCI, most likely, as well.

Did you also make predictions that the Savings and Loans, and perhaps Enron, would also continue with business as usual in spite of the courts? We saw how those came out.

As to your use of the term ''bumpkins'', you apply that to all jurors in many of your posts.  I would think that would be offensive to anyone who has served on jury duty.  Now you say it is only a subset of jurors.  I have pointed out that both experienced trial attorneys and jury consultants don't even waste their challenges on prospective jurors they perceive as mere followers, and there are some on every jury.  It is the likely opinion leaders that count on a jury and that is who will determine the outcome of jury deliberations and who attorneys focus on with their challenges.






			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> Rumors are rumors - using rumors to whip up a class action is done all the time by the lawyers - just look at the silicone implants and the massive awards.  Only after the awards did many scientific findings point out the false assumptions used by the courts.  Our bumpkins were shown voodoo science and their emotions took over.
> 
> Voodoo accounting seems to be what is whipping up folks with RCI - the independent auditors have found no accounting irregularities - that should be all that is needed over voodoo accounting.
> 
> ...


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 6, 2006)

*Lets get to the bottom line. Public or secret best?*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> Yeah, and when a Points members puts in a mid-August Outer Banks week 33and takes out a late October Outer Banks week 43 for the same number of points, they are getting seriously shortchanged even though the points values are the same.  They are NOT giving the same value back in such situations that the member put in.  Far from it, in fact.
> 
> Overaveraging is bad!



Overaveraged, underaveraged, middle aged, secretly or publically detirmined it makes no difference IF YOU KNOW THE RESULTS!  Then you the buyer can decide if the resort/area/product is a value or not.  If RCI or any system overvalues resorts or areas then the users are going to avoid that area and leave a surplus of time. If they undervalue it the users will flock to it and they will get complaints that it is unavailable.  Any system thrives when the demand and supply are in balance.  That is what a published system allows.  The users to decide if the "price is right" or not. Changes will occur, in public, to get the system in balance. 

With the weeks secret society approach only the developers and the exchange companies really know what value they are assigning. No one can say if the values under that system are as dynamic as you say or if they were set in the computer in 1990 and never altered since. We don't know so when we hear "Your trade power is (fill in the blank) ___________ (good) (poor) (OK)"  we have to accept it.  Talk about the power to manipulate!  

While a published system may not be perfect it is far superior to a totally hidden system that has led to the unbelievable amount of owners sold an impossible dream by the slick sales people and the "you can trade anywhere with this November beach unit"  garbage.  If there was a low number published next to that week and high numbers published next to those weeks they dream of trading into do you think that wouldn't be painfully obvious it couldn't work that way?  That, and only that, is the reason they keep it secret. It doesn't and can't benefit the owners.


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 6, 2006)

*Just a thought*

Would it be better if RCI would come up with a point value list of all the timeshare resorts (week and point-based) that exchange with RCI for a *daily* occupancy for all sizes of accommodations? In that case, people can decide immediately if their timeshare is valued properly for them and if they want to go ahead and deposit it or not. I am aware that supply and demand changes constantly but a smart computer system knows exactly what is in the inventory pool and what exchanges have been requested so should be able to give a current point value instantaneously. This would be fair to all members and it doesn't matter what you own (a week or points).

Also, new developers will get a high point value for their new resorts because they are up to date and in excellent condition and will get more points yet if the area is not saturated and the resort is in a prime location. Developers will have an incentive to start building in other popular areas too. Just a thought.


----------



## "Roger" (Sep 6, 2006)

iconnections said:
			
		

> Would it be better if RCI would come up with a point value list of all the timeshare resorts (week and point-based) that exchange with RCI for a *daily* occupancy for all sizes of accommodations? In that case, people can decide immediately if their timeshare is valued properly for them and if they want to go ahead and deposit it or not. ....


Yes, it would be better.  Then you wouldn't have the tragedies like what the OP experienced.

I might just mention in passing with regard to "dynamic" (constantly changing) system supply and demand that is being touted by Carolinian, the most obvious case of a "dynamic" system of changing prices would be the stock exchanges.  What goes with that is that what asking prices are, bid prices are, and actual completed trade prices are are made TOTALLY transparent.  (And if something exchanges hands without transparancy, the SEC steps to investigate for price fixing.)  

In the "dynamic" supply and demand of RCI (II, SFX, etc.) has anyone ever been told what the exact trading power was need to consumate an exchange?

I am afraid that this system does nothing but give advantages to the developers over the consumers.  Not good.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Sep 6, 2006)

I believe the two biggest scams in all of timesharing are a) resort developers financing a timeshare purchase at 15% interest for an asset that depreciates more than 50% overnight and b) the lack of adequate disclosure about exchange availability and trading power.

a) results in many owners not being able to sell their timeshare even when they haven't used it for years.

b) allows resort developers to lie about how well their specific timeshare trades.  Point systems do better than weeks systems in disclosing trading power.  But, supply and demand isn't optimally met because point values aren't set right which leads to availability issues.  Even so, the availability in points still is better than weeks since everyone has access to all available inventory as long as they have enough points and higher point values throttles back demand where required.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 6, 2006)

How do you figure the developer knows anything about trading value in the Weeks system?  I know of no basis for such a claim.  I have never seen anything that would indicate that anybody other than the exchange company would know that.

You say changes will occur in RCI Points numbers?  Then WHY haven't they for Points resorts as long as RCI Points has existed????

Actually a company that tries to sluff off inventory to rent to the general public would want the system not to be in balance, so that they can claim that there is an excess.  The old conflict of interest from the rentals rears its ugly head again!  A system that wants to divert inventory for other uses thrives on imbalance, not balance.

Are trade values dynamic?  Of course! anyone who has ever used the system knows that both the trading power of deposits and of the weeks you are after changes.  Right after a bulkbanking, for example, when the system is flush with inventory it is much easier to trade into that resort than usual.

If that November beach week you speak about happens to be Thanksgiving it will get an exchange a lot of places that a great many weeks from overbuilt places like Orlando will not.

When one can look at the numbers in a system and see it full of fraud, how is that supposed to make someone want to use such a system?

The developer scam usually comes from the PUBLISHED aspects of the RCI system - like ''all weeks in Orlando are red, so you have great trading power''.
The fact that it is public is what makes it impossible for RCI to change it to make it honest by setting some as blue or white.  The developers would scream if they did that.  The public portion is the problem not the nonpublished part.

Why are you so opposed to publishing the formula and data for establishing numbers??? You want to publish the results, so why not the whole picture????
Is it because publishing that information would mean that RCI could no longer overpoint places like Orlando??   A secret formula and data benefits certain people - those whose resorts are now overpointed like in overbuilt areas.




			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> Overaveraged, underaveraged, middle aged, secretly or publically detirmined it makes no difference IF YOU KNOW THE RESULTS!  Then you the buyer can decide if the resort/area/product is a value or not.  If RCI or any system overvalues resorts or areas then the users are going to avoid that area and leave a surplus of time. If they undervalue it the users will flock to it and they will get complaints that it is unavailable.  Any system thrives when the demand and supply are in balance.  That is what a published system allows.  The users to decide if the "price is right" or not. Changes will occur, in public, to get the system in balance.
> 
> With the weeks secret society approach only the developers and the exchange companies really know what value they are assigning. No one can say if the values under that system are as dynamic as you say or if they were set in the computer in 1990 and never altered since. We don't know so when we hear "Your trade power is (fill in the blank) ___________ (good) (poor) (OK)"  we have to accept it.  Talk about the power to manipulate!
> 
> While a published system may not be perfect it is far superior to a totally hidden system that has led to the unbelievable amount of owners sold an impossible dream by the slick sales people and the "you can trade anywhere with this November beach unit"  garbage.  If there was a low number published next to that week and high numbers published next to those weeks they dream of trading into do you think that wouldn't be painfully obvious it couldn't work that way?  That, and only that, is the reason they keep it secret. It doesn't and can't benefit the owners.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 6, 2006)

I have posted before that for a points system to be honest it has to be dynamic, and it can't be dynamic if it depends on paper and ink publication.
Only electronic publication can do that.  Electronic publication could also cure the space problem with a paper and ink system that requires the overarveraging.  Yet no points system is all electonic.

The key again, is publication of the formula and data that numbers are computed on to keep the developers from politicking the exchange company.
I know this will make the numbers come down from those areas now overpointed, which will be painful for some, but it is necessary to keep the system honest.

Also ''new'' is a minor driver of demand, but is dwarfed by location.  The newest GC resort on the OBX is also the lowest demanded, by far, due to its location far from the beach.  Older beachfront resorts with fewer bells and whistles have far more demand.  The key drivers of demand are location, location, and location.







			
				iconnections said:
			
		

> Would it be better if RCI would come up with a point value list of all the timeshare resorts (week and point-based) that exchange with RCI for a *daily* occupancy for all sizes of accommodations? In that case, people can decide immediately if their timeshare is valued properly for them and if they want to go ahead and deposit it or not. I am aware that supply and demand changes constantly but a smart computer system knows exactly what is in the inventory pool and what exchanges have been requested so should be able to give a current point value instantaneously. This would be fair to all members and it doesn't matter what you own (a week or points).
> 
> Also, new developers will get a high point value for their new resorts because they are up to date and in excellent condition and will get more points yet if the area is not saturated and the resort is in a prime location. Developers will have an incentive to start building in other popular areas too. Just a thought.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 6, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> The key drivers of demand are location, location, and location.



Not if the location, location, location is in an area (or time of year) no one wants!  What is a great location in July may not be so good in February.  So location alone cannot tell the whole story.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 6, 2006)

*A meaningful class action*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> Why are you so opposed to publishing the formula and data for establishing numbers??? You want to publish the results, so why not the whole picture????
> Is it because publishing that information would mean that RCI could no longer overpoint places like Orlando??   A secret formula and data benefits certain people - those whose resorts are now overpointed like in overbuilt areas.



I'm not. Publish it all. But for both weeks and points.  I believe we'd quickly discover that the same numbers are being used in both cases.  

I'll go one better. Let's get a class action going to do some good. Make RCI disclose the trade values - how they get them and what they are - for every resort, every week.  Then we'd have something of value to all owners, buyers and sellers. That's a class action worth fighting for.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 6, 2006)

*Evidence, there is none*

Carolinian,

As I’ve said multiple times, the independent CPA auditors find no accounting irregularities at RCI – if they had even the slightest doubt of anything in the company they would not sign off.  I would trust the independent auditors.

I think that what the rumors floating around here indicate is a lack of access to the accounting system buried in the RCI computers.  I have no reason the doubt what has been said by Bootleg, but my proposed accounting of Trading Power can easily explain the sightings – as I demonstrated.  That accounting system is hidden, just like Trading Power.

There isn’t a shred of evidence reported by the news media that support any of these wild rumors – not one reporter has found anything.  That is another nail in the coffin for these baseless lawsuits.

To compare what RCI may or may not have done with Enron is just another wild speculation backed up by no supporting evidence of independent auditors or an independent press.  Whistler blowers make their first stop at the news outlets – where are the stories?

Nope, voodoo accounting is going to try to be presented to the courts as proof.  Whether the jurors are infested with bumpkins remains to be seen.


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 6, 2006)

timeos2 said:
			
		

> I'm not. Publish it all. But for both weeks and points. I believe we'd quickly discover that the same numbers are being used in both cases.
> 
> I'll go one better. Let's get a class action going to do some good. Make RCI disclose the trade values - how they get them and what they are - for *every resort, every week*. Then we'd have something of value to all owners, buyers and sellers. That's a class action worth fighting for.


How can you do it for a week if point owners can go just for one night only or has it to be for a few nights minimum? I am not sure about that. 

That's why I mentioned a *daily* point value. I know that the week-based system is mainly for weeks only but there are exceptions here too. Most are weeks and if you cut your week short that is tough luck if you leave early. RCI is not at fault here.


----------



## JudyS (Sep 7, 2006)

To the Original Poster, Midlife Traveler (if you're still here!)  Like many others, I am suspicious of what RCI is doing with its exchange inventory, and wondering why good trades are so hard to find in RCI Weeks.  That said, I think the problem that you are encountering was caused by OLCC, not by RCI.  There are just way too many timeshare units available in Orlando, especially in the fall.  OLCC sold you a week where there is a ton of supply and only so-so demand.  OLCC probably didn't lie to you outright -- the week *is* red, and the resort *is* Gold Crown -- but those things don't necessarily add to trade power.  (In fact, many TUG members feel that Gold Crown status reduces members' abilities to get trades.) 

Most of the time you want to use your OLCC week, so that is good.  The other years, have you considered trying to rent it out?  I'm sure other families in your town would also like to go to Disney during Jersey Week.  Is there some place locally that you could advertise your week?

Also, OLCC is moving towards a points-based system.  I believe the cost to convert to points is $1295, and is scheduled to go up to $1995 soon.  If might make sense to convert to points.  The issues are, "Will you get enough points for the amount of annual fees that you pay?"  and "Will you get enough use out of the system to justify the conversion fee?"  I'd suggest starting a new thread on this on the Points boad, since this thread has gotten off-topic.


----------



## Joe M (Sep 7, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> ... RCI puts some of the prime week exchange deposits into their rental pool immediately when they are deposited by members, and these deposits have nothing to do with cruises, points partners, etc...



Please recall a previous comment from Madge:

_Some of the units you see in Extra Vacations that aren't available for exchange were obtained via Cruise Exchanges or Points Partner reservations. Because these vacations were not deposited for the purpose of exchanging, they are not available as exchange vacations. *(Note: It is possible that the units are comparable units being offered in place of the actual units that were traded if they were already assigned when the member requested the cruise, etc.)*_

The direct movement of deposits into the rental pool mentioned by Bootleg may very well related to points or cruises. You may feel that RCI should not have the option of choosing this comparable unit and I can understand that opinion. However we do not know for sure that these rentals are not related to points transactions or cruise exchange.

It works like this:

Case 1...I deposit my SA week into Weeks and remove a summer OBX week. I know that I have the trade power to do so.

Case 2...I deposit my SA week and convert it to Points. I use my points for air tickets. My SA week is taken in trade as, per your own admission, it is very popular with Europeans. Therefore, RCI cannot rent my SA deposit as it is already spoken for. Instead, to pay for my air tickets RCI moves an incoming OBX deposit (like the one I could have traded for) into the rental pool.

Net result of Case 1 is exactly the same as Case 2. One SA week into the Weeks pool, one OBX week out of the Weeks pool.


----------



## JudyS (Sep 7, 2006)

PerryM said:
			
		

> ...As I’ve said multiple times, the independent CPA auditors find no accounting irregularities at RCI – if they had even the slightest doubt of anything in the company they would not sign off.  I would trust the independent auditors....


But have the independent auditors actually *said *that all owner-deposited weeks are made available for exchange?  Do they even look at this, now that RCI has snuck language into their contracts saying that they can do whatever they want with deposited weeks?  And, where can RCI members get the results of these audits?



I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea whether the class action will suceed.  I do have the following comments, though.

First, I accept the fact that RCI isn't holding a gun to people's heads and forcing them to join.  However, I think this is irrelevant.  The real issue, it seems to me, is whether RCI is misrepresenting what they do with deposited weeks.  If they lead members to believe that deposited weeks are made available for exchange, and then rent out the weeks instead, that's a misrepresentation. 

I think that, even if RCI puts in the small print that they can do whatever they like with deposited weeks, they are clearly implying that deposited weeks are made available for exchange.  If not, then why would people join?  "Hi, we're RCI!   Give us your valuable timeshare week,  pay us $89 every year, and we'll, um, take your week and make money with it and give you nothing!  Sign up now!"  There is a presumption that when people engage in a business transaction, they do so because they hope to get something out of it.  I think RCI would have a hard time arguing that members would give them their weeks, knowing that other members' weeks would just be appropriated by RCI and not be available for trades. 

Second, I also do not like the characterisation of the typical American citizen as a "bumpkin."   However, regardless of one's opinion of the typical juror, I'm not so sure that jurors would be hostile to "rich" timeshare owners with their "5 star" (not an RCI term, by the way) resorts.  I think it would be hard to get a jury where everyone has a postive, or even neutral, view of timeshares.   RCI might be able to exclude timeshare owners, but I doubt they could exclude everyone who has had a bad timeshare tour experience, or who has a close friend or relative who was ripped off in timesharing.   The jury might start off suspicious of, or even hostile too, RCI.

Third, if the the class action made RCI more transparent and gave its members information on how exchanges work, that in itself would be very valuable.  I'm with John on this one.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 7, 2006)

*Auditors audit*

JudyS,

THE main business of RCI is exchanging reservations.  They branched out into airline tickets for RCI Points and thus all of these areas are open to the independent auditors for inspection.  If the auditors found any irregularities they would report them as required by their profession.  To assume that the auditors blissfully ignore certain key areas is why these lawsuits still have legs.

My whimsical take on bumpkins is that these folks exist everywhere – we have all met bumpkins in our life – these are the folks who don’t have a lick of common sense and seem to infest our courts as jurors.  When I read about some of the wacky verdicts returned I know that there were bumpkins on that jury.

Look at all the trials overturned by DNA evidence – the bumpkins on that jury were obviously wrong – how many folks have been put to death with bumpkins sitting in judgment?  I’m not saying that all jurors are bumpkins but there are quite a few out there deciding the future of our country.

The courts have amply demonstrated that the jury system of trials is flawed – however, we just don’t have a better solution yet.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 7, 2006)

timeos2 said:
			
		

> Not if the location, location, location is in an area (or time of year) no one wants!  What is a great location in July may not be so good in February.  So location alone cannot tell the whole story.



Not the whole story, but most of it on the demand side!


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 7, 2006)

At least one Tugger with auditing expereince (I have none) has responded to you before that an auditor would crunch the numbers on this matter based on the guidelines set up by RCI.  If the guidelines themselves were screwy, the audit would not reveal that.  So this independent audit really tells you nothing.

You probably trusted the Sunterra auditors, too, didn't you?  But look where their audits have gotten them in the last few months - suspended from the stock market!

Reports in the news media???!!!  Why in the world do you think the news media would be digging around in such matters?  The digging that will be done will be in the discovery process in the lawsuit.  The news media could not even have access to the documents that RCI will be required to turn over in discovery.  Personally, I would bet that they find a lot.  In the Bluebeards Castle HOAs lawsuit against Fairfield, discovery produced evidence of another $10 million owed by Fairfield that they hadn't known about when they filed the lawsuit.

Whistle blowers do not necessarily make their first stop at the news media.
Look at former Sunterra exec turned whistleblower Ian Podesta, who has brought Sunterra to its knees.  He didn't touch the traditional news media.
He went after Sunterra on the internet, and, hey, it worked didn't it?  Nick Benson, the fired Sunterra CEO, probably rues the day he decided to fight Podesta instead of trying to reform when he had the chance. Podesta gave him that opportunity.

RCI in the future might also be ruing the day it decided to fight rather than reform.

Don't be expecting a lot of stories in the news media.  As discovery in a lawsuit progresses, this stuff in NOT splashed all over the newspapers.
And it is voodoo accounting that RCI, like Sunterra, is probably going to try to put up as a defense.  And it probably won't work.

Are the judges who rule with plaintiffs, such as in the Bluebeards HOA lawsuit, also bumpkins in your mind?





			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> Carolinian,
> 
> As I’ve said multiple times, the independent CPA auditors find no accounting irregularities at RCI – if they had even the slightest doubt of anything in the company they would not sign off.  I would trust the independent auditors.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 7, 2006)

The whole ability of these Points people to take Weeks inventory is one of the issues underlying the lawsuit. If the lawsuit is successful, RCI will not be able to loot Weeks inventory to prop up Points.  The fact that they are now doing so is a massive ripoff of their Weeks members.  Hopefully the courts will bring that to a screeching halt.

The very first ananlysis of RCI Points in the timeshare media was the front page article by Sing Li on the subject in Timesharing Today.  In it he warned that the biggest problem ahead was what he termed ''magic balancing'' between the systems.  He was right.  And now we have the class action lawsuit to hopefully correct it.

And I look at summer southeastern beach with various exchange deposits frequently.  I can pull summer OBX with my tiger European trader, but early June is the best I have ever found occaisionally with one of my SA weeks on the OBX.  I have pulled a fair amount in summer HHI and occaisionally summer Va. Beach, but never OBX or Myrtle Beach with an SA.  Summer starts in the middle of June.

As to citing Madge, she is a source more of corporate spin than of information.





			
				Joe M said:
			
		

> Please recall a previous comment from Madge:
> 
> _Some of the units you see in Extra Vacations that aren't available for exchange were obtained via Cruise Exchanges or Points Partner reservations. Because these vacations were not deposited for the purpose of exchanging, they are not available as exchange vacations. *(Note: It is possible that the units are comparable units being offered in place of the actual units that were traded if they were already assigned when the member requested the cruise, etc.)*_
> 
> ...


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 7, 2006)

*Finding and collecting aren't always the same*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> In the Bluebeards Castle HOAs lawsuit against Fairfield, discovery produced evidence of another $10 million owed by Fairfield that they hadn't known about when they filed the lawsuit.
> 
> Are the judges who rule with plaintiffs, such as in the Bluebeards HOA lawsuit, also bumpkins in your mind?



Two different times making a possible "discovery" or a pretrial ruling to be "facts".  Nothing they discover or a judge says can be included in a proceding necessarily means it will hold up should this actually come to trial.  Until there is a court decision stating that the HOA gets this and FF has to pay that assuming that either side wins or loses is a big assumption with zero basis in fact. They can discover all the millions due they want. Until the court says FF has to pay - or it is settled by the parties - they are counting unhatched chickens.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 7, 2006)

Oh, it WILL come to trial.  The judge has already set a trial date, as well as ruling for the HOAs on a raft of pre-trial motions including injunctive relief against Fairfield.




			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> Two different times making a possible "discovery" or a pretrial ruling to be "facts".  Nothing they discover or a judge says can be included in a proceding necessarily means it will hold up should this actually come to trial.  Until there is a court decision stating that the HOA gets this and FF has to pay that assuming that either side wins or loses is a big assumption with zero basis in fact. They can discover all the millions due they want. Until the court says FF has to pay - or it is settled by the parties - they are counting unhatched chickens.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 7, 2006)

*In conclusion...*

As much as I love politics, this chat room isn’t the venue to continue the debate on the legal system.

To summarize my position and my final post on this thread (anyone changed their mind on this topic?):

*Stockholders see no evil:*
Stockholders are full of lawyers patrolling for weaknesses to sue the corporations they own stocks in.  This is a great sign that nothing is wrong.

*Independent, outside, CPA firms, see no evil:*
Exchanging reservations is the MAIN business of RCI, of course the auditors audit these areas.  The lack of scathing audits on RCI’s practices is a great sign that nothing is wrong.

*Whistleblowers see no evil:*
Where are the whistleblowers?  They don’t exist, a good sign that nothing is wrong.  I'm talking about folks who are in the right place to have evidence, in writing, of wrong doings.

*News organizations see no evil:*
Where are the hard hitting reporters?  None have found even a slight hint of wrong doing.  This is a great sign, nothing wrong here.


*Lawyers will make everything ok:*
Against all this, only conspiracy theories can explain why folks can’t get the ideal exchange they want.  Come on guys these guys are not here to help with anything but fill their pockets with cash that we RCI members will be paying for.

Can bumpkins be found to support guilty verdicts or findings in favor of a plaintive?  Of course they can.  Doesn’t mean RCI is doing anything wrong.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 7, 2006)

1.  Stockholders only get geared up to sue if the wrongs cost them money.  That only happened at Sunterra after the info on other wrongs caused their stock to go south.

2.  The Sunterra (former) auditors saw no evil either.  Yet the mess has really hit the fan there.

3.  Whistleblowers have given info here and on other internet boards.  Hopefully they have also taken what they have to the class action attorneys, where it will do the most good under wraps until deployed in the most effective way.  Bootleg diappeared from the timeshare boards about the time the lawsuits were filed.  Most people thought RCI had either found him out or was searching more thoroughly for him because of the suits so he went to ground.  Suppose instead, he made what he had availible to the class action attorneys and they told him to keep quiet until the proper time.  With a lawsuit in progress, the attorneys are going to want to use any whistleblowers at the appropriate time for their case.

4.  There is not a thing to suggest that any reporters have even looked, and if they haven't looked, of course they haven't found anything!

5.  Common sense tells you that if inventory is rented out, there will be less there to trade for.  This is hardly a ''conspiracy theory''!

6.  Jurors in this case will come from New Jersey, an urbanized state.  Calling them ''bumpkins'' is simply not accurate.





			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> As much as I love politics, this chat room isn’t the venue to continue the debate on the legal system.
> 
> To summarize my position and my final post on this thread (anyone changed their mind on this topic?):
> 
> ...


----------



## Dean (Sep 10, 2006)

MidlifeTraveler said:
			
		

> gmarine:
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm only just realizing the REAL trading power issue.  It's unfortunate that I did not understand exactly how it worked at the time I purchased the unit.  The week number itself was left out of the equation and the concept was sold on the "rare 3 bedroom, gold crown, many amenities,etc".   It is unfair for me to have to wait 2 years, however, and line up behind rentals!  Maybe RCI can do as they wish with the weeks but this only motivates people to rent or guest their weeks to friends, which only further depletes inventory and is of no benefit to RCI or owners!.


I know I'm getting in late but I think you're getting a skewed view.  While some people believe that RCI is renting out weeks which should be destined for exchange, there is no real evidence to prove that that I have seen.  And while posting by anonymous employees would not be enough to convince me, I have never seen either of those two RCI employes (or former employees) specifically state on TUG that RCI is indeed diverting legitimate deposits to the rental system.  I tend to agree with Perry that the auditors would pick it up but also know that's not specifically what they are auditing.  

But there are legitimate sources of rentals as well and these include points traded for weeks exchanges and anything traded for cash equivalent options.  You should also know that your position in line while waiting for that exchange is always being reshuffled.  So if there are two people in line and the person ahead of you gets their exchange and someone else joins your line, they may move ahead of you.  For a low season Orlando week, this is very likely.  But there are ways to maximize you options and you need to figure out what those are for your situation.


----------



## Dean (Sep 10, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Except, that like anything RCI makes public, the season codes are bent.  Every week in overbuilt Orlando or the Canary Islands red??? What a laugh!
> And size alone doesn't really matter.  A hotel unit in London or New York is always going to be far more valuable than the largest unit availible in Orlando.
> 
> The factors that determine what is an equal trade are supply and demand. Period.
> ...


The factors that determine trade power for II include the resort rating/demand, demand of the week, size of the unit, how far out it was deposited and any home resort or internal trading preferences.  The last two being far less important to trade power itself.  I'd assume they are similar with RCI.  Given that this is a general rating system and assuming that the exchange companies don't want to micromanage this issue, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some non red weeks/resorts that have a higher trade power than a specific red week/resort.  But the implication that there is an agenda behind it, as you've suggested previously, is very suspect at best and I think is highly unlikely but you never know.  I find you make way to many assumptions about WHICH factors have the most impact on trade power.  Either you know a lot of info that most of the rest of us do not have any access to or you have your personal opinions and experience that you are attempting to present as fact.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 10, 2006)

Bootleg has specifically stated that here, and Anon has on TimeshareTalk (see the Ask RCI Insider thread).




			
				Dean said:
			
		

> I know I'm getting in late but I think you're getting a skewed view.  While some people believe that RCI is renting out weeks which should be destined for exchange, there is no real evidence to prove that that I have seen.  And while posting by anonymous employees would not be enough to convince me, I have never seen either of those two RCI employes (or former employees) specifically state on TUG that RCI is indeed diverting legitimate deposits to the rental system.  I tend to agree with Perry that the auditors would pick it up but also know that's not specifically what they are auditing.
> 
> But there are legitimate sources of rentals as well and these include points traded for weeks exchanges and anything traded for cash equivalent options.  You should also know that your position in line while waiting for that exchange is always being reshuffled.  So if there are two people in line and the person ahead of you gets their exchange and someone else joins your line, they may move ahead of you.  For a low season Orlando week, this is very likely.  But there are ways to maximize you options and you need to figure out what those are for your situation.


----------



## Dean (Sep 10, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Bootleg has specifically stated that here, and Anon has on TimeshareTalk (see the Ask RCI Insider thread).


I haven't seen it on TUG and when we've discussed this issue before, you've never quoted bootleg saying it that I recall, only stated that he had said it previously.  He would certainly have had the opportunity to confirm this on more than one occasion as well as on this thread.  I'm not a member of Timeshare talk and haven't any plans to be one.  Regardless, as I stated above, it would take more than one former and one current employee even specifically agreeing with this issue to convince me, maybe I'm just TOO cynical.  It may or may not be accurate but I would not consider this sufficient proof.  Even then, renting out high demand weeks/resorts is not the same as diverting units specifically targeted for the exchange system.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 10, 2006)

If you had kept up, Bootleg vanished from the three t/s boards he was posting on several months ago, and his email address went dead about the same time.  The theories were: 1) that he had been id'ed by RCI or outed to RCI by a pro-RCI staff member at one of the websites, 2) that because of the lawsuits, RCI's search for people like Bootleg had gone into high gear and he went to ground to avoid being id'ed, 3) that he was providing info to help out on the lawsuits and the attorneys, naturally would want him to keep info useful for the lawsuits close to the vest for now.  His sudden vanishing act and the timing of it, coming shortly after the filing of the lawsuits, certainly do raise some questions.

Bootleg initially brought this info in question forward in a private email to another Tugger, and he subsequnetly gave permission to that Tugger to post in on the old TUG boards. 

I only quote Anon from TimeshareTalk, because his bonafides have been checked out.  There are others who say they work for RCI that post similar info there, such as TripleTim and Timesharecrook.  One of them did post a screen shot from RCI's computer of a prime exchange deposit diverted to rental, and Bootleg confirmed that it had all the info of an RCI screeen but was compressed.

With this and the scads of circumstantial evidence out there, I think would would not like to have you on a jury if I had the burden of proof, but would love to have you on the jury if I were representing the defense. 





			
				Dean said:
			
		

> I haven't seen it on TUG and when we've discussed this issue before, you've never quoted bootleg saying it that I recall, only stated that he had said it previously.  He would certainly have had the opportunity to confirm this on more than one occasion as well as on this thread.  I'm not a member of Timeshare talk and haven't any plans to be one.  Regardless, as I stated above, it would take more than one former and one current employee even specifically agreeing with this issue to convince me, maybe I'm just TOO cynical.  It may or may not be accurate but I would not consider this sufficient proof.  Even then, renting out high demand weeks/resorts is not the same as diverting units specifically targeted for the exchange system.


----------



## Dean (Sep 10, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> If you had kept up, Bootleg vanished from the three t/s boards he was posting on several months ago, and his email address went dead about the same time.  The theories were: 1) that he had been id'ed by RCI or outed to RCI by a pro-RCI staff member at one of the websites, 2) that because of the lawsuits, RCI's search for people like Bootleg had gone into high gear and he went to ground to avoid being id'ed, 3) that he was providing info to help out on the lawsuits and the attorneys, naturally would want him to keep info useful for the lawsuits close to the vest for now.  His sudden vanishing act and the timing of it, coming shortly after the filing of the lawsuits, certainly do raise some questions.
> 
> Bootleg initially brought this info in question forward in a private email to another Tugger, and he subsequnetly gave permission to that Tugger to post in on the old TUG boards.
> 
> ...


I didn't know he had left, I don't have time to read everything.  I did know it was a question a few months back.  Sorry to hear that, I felt he was an asset.  I'd make a great juror either way if the truth were the issue.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 10, 2006)

Dean - I agree. Bootleg has been a tremendous asset to all of the t/s boards he has participated in.  He has provided a lot of useful info, and always seemed a straight shooter - neither being an apologist for his company nor with an axe to grind with it either.  He called as he saw them.  I hope when whatever circumstances caused him to depart have changed that we will see him back.


----------



## "Roger" (Sep 11, 2006)

I realize that at this point there are probably only three people left reading this thread (that might be a generous estimate), but just in case ...

The following thread exemplifies two of the deep rooted problems with the way in which trading power is currently administered within the Weeks system
The wonders of the Weeks trading power system


One person deposited her week, found out that it had low trading power, asked for it back (and, in this case, was able to get it) and then redeposited the unit.  The second time around, it had much improved trading power. 

How could that happen (apart from some dirty dealings)?  Easy.  If the first time the person deposited her week coincided with when a number of other owners of the same resort or a number of other South Africa owners deposited their weeks, by the dynamic formula of supply and demand, the trading power would be reduced (high supply).  And once the trading power of a deposit is set, it stays fixed.

But why would a whole bunch of people deposit their weeks about the same time?  There are a number of possibilities:  Maintenence fees due.  Time of year.  (People are beginning to think of their next year's vacation.)  Etc.

Several people think that RCI has mistakenly assigned the incorrect trading power to their unit.  Given that the interface between RCI North America and RCI South Africa is shakey at best, that could well be.  Unfortumately, since the trading power is kept secret, the owners have no way of documenting what they suspect to be true.
There is a third negative consequence of the Weeks secret trading power system reflected within that thread.  Aldo presumes that there must be dirty dealing.  When things happen in secret (and, when going to places like TUG you read messages about "loose lips sink ships" -- that is, here are some ways to manipulate the system that we need to keep secret), suspicions of dirty dealings are inevitable.

All of this, so that developers can tell someone that there red, three bedroom (in November) has great trading power.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 11, 2006)

*Don't stop the insanity, please!*

I exploit II's (which is the same as RCI's) insane dynamic supply and demand in their Week system.  I hope they never change.

Last Christmas I got 3, count them 3, exchanges for WM credits into 2 Marriott Summit Watches and 1 Marriott Mountainside – this was for Christmas week, week 51, last year.  I got them 6 months out and all 3 hit within 3 days.  Marriott sells Platinum Plus week 51 for about $60,000+ each and my WM credits cost me about $7,500 week.

This year I exchanged a Gold Marriott Summit Watch (cost me $5,500) for a Platinum Maui (costs about $46,000) for the week after the 4th of July.  (Again, about 6 months out)

This is the result of the insanity of instantaneously calculating Supply and Demand.  My exchanges were sitting there for 6 months, just waiting for Marriott owners who had hot holiday weeks (July in Maui is as hot as week 51) and let the stupidity of the instant Supply crash the trading power down to nothing.

Thanks II (and RCI, you too) for the insanity – please don’t listen to others and change your system.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Sep 11, 2006)

I am still reading this thread....


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 11, 2006)

Making the results but not the formula public as in Points give an incentive and an opportunity to cheat.  Conflicts of interest like an exchange company renting exchange deposits to the general public, do, too.   These are the real problems.

The part about the proverbial red week that will trade for anything you mention that creates the problem is the public part - the designation as a red week, not the unpublished part, the trading power.  What is public is subject to being manipulated by the developers as many designations as ''red'' and points numbers in the numbers racket called RCI Points both clearly show. 






			
				Roger said:
			
		

> I realize that at this point there are probably only three people left reading this thread (that might be a generous estimate), but just in case ...
> 
> The following thread exemplifies two of the deep rooted problems with the way in which trading power is currently administered within the Weeks system
> The wonders of the Weeks trading power system
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 11, 2006)

The market is the market.  If the market has an oversupply of something you think is worth more, go for it.  But supply and demand are real forces, not ''insane.''  Calcified points numbers is just another inane theory akin to rent control, wage and price controls, currency pegs, etc.




			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> I exploit II's (which is the same as RCI's) insane dynamic supply and demand in their Week system.  I hope they never change.
> 
> Last Christmas I got 3, count them 3, exchanges for WM credits into 2 Marriott Summit Watches and 1 Marriott Mountainside – this was for Christmas week, week 51, last year.  I got them 6 months out and all 3 hit within 3 days.  Marriott sells Platinum Plus week 51 for about $60,000+ each and my WM credits cost me about $7,500 week.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Sep 11, 2006)

*Hope this works with BMWs too*

I wish my local BMW dealer used II’s and RCI’s definition of “Supply”; that way I could call them each morning and find out how many 325’s they had in stock.  If they had 1 then I’d have to pay sticker price.  If they had 2 then they must reduce the price to unload it.  The last time I was up there, they had 12 325’s in stock so my 1995 Camry wagon would be worth more (Only have 1 of them) then the 12th BMW 325!

The dealer would, of course, use words like “Insane idea”, but I’d have him call RCI and II since this is how they handle Supply and Demand.

This is the exact logic I used to ski Marriott’s most expensive resorts at Christmas time and swim the warm Maui beaches at the 4th of July; and I put up weeks worth 1/5 the price!

This is a fundamental flaw in RCI and II which allows for totally lopsided exchanges which I just love.  Unfortunately, those owners who use common sense would never think of putting up a cheap week for a hot holiday week.  That’s where they made a huge mistake – to assume RCI and II know what the heck they are doing.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 11, 2006)

*Secret is not a consumer friendly model*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> The market is the market.  If the market has an oversupply of something you think is worth more, go for it.  But supply and demand are real forces, not ''insane.''  Calcified points numbers is just another inane theory akin to rent control, wage and price controls, currency pegs, etc.



There is no "market" when the exchange does all the work in hiding.  Where in the II/RCI system does the customer get a say?  Where do they see the value of what they gave up or the value of what they want? When do they get to say "yes, thats a fair exchange"?  How anyone can defend keeping the customers in the dark as a better system is completely beyond my comprehension.  It has nothing to do with fixing values (they can always be changed if they are wrong) but simply hiding alomost everything from the consumers (except of course the red/white system that plays into the deception sellers want to foster) "for their own good".  Sorry. That just doesn't make sense.  Open systems will naturally regulate themselves. Secret systems favor the select few. You can't get any more secret than weeks.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 11, 2006)

Automobiles do work on the same principle, but with the totality of the market not just a small geographical subset of it.

Instead of BMW's, think Morgan's.  For years the factory in Malvern Hills, England has had a backlog of orders, usually for at least a year.  Order a new Morgan Plus 8, and when it is delivered, you can sell it for a good bit more than list price.  That is because the backlog means a buyer cannot get a new Plus 8 off of the lot.  They have to order and wait.  That limitation of supply means a higher price if you choose to sell your new Morgan instead of driving it.  If you are not familiar with Morgan sportscars, the company which is still owned by the Morgan family has been making cars since before World War I, and has not substantially changed the bodystyle since 1939.  There are only two Morgan dealerships in the US.

The same thing has happened with limited production Jaguars.  Even some hot new cars from more mundane makes have seen the same thing when demand for a new model is so great that early production cannot keep up.
Dealers can charge and get higher than list price.




			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> I wish my local BMW dealer used II’s and RCI’s definition of “Supply”; that way I could call them each morning and find out how many 325’s they had in stock.  If they had 1 then I’d have to pay sticker price.  If they had 2 then they must reduce the price to unload it.  The last time I was up there, they had 12 325’s in stock so my 1995 Camry wagon would be worth more (Only have 1 of them) then the 12th BMW 325!
> 
> The dealer would, of course, use words like “Insane idea”, but I’d have him call RCI and II since this is how they handle Supply and Demand.
> 
> ...


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 11, 2006)

timeos2 said:
			
		

> There is no "market" when the exchange does all the work in hiding. Where in the II/RCI system does the customer get a say? Where do they see the value of what they gave up or the value of what they want? When do they get to say "yes, thats a fair exchange"? How anyone can defend keeping the customers in the dark as a better system is completely beyond my comprehension. It has nothing to do with fixing values (they can always be changed if they are wrong) but simply hiding alomost everything from the consumers (except of course the red/white system that plays into the deception sellers want to foster) "for their own good". Sorry. That just doesn't make sense. Open systems will naturally regulate themselves. Secret systems favor the select few. You can't get any more secret than weeks.


Exactly and this is why I would not deposit a week to RCI or II but II has request first but then you won't get an extra week. Letting people know what they can exchange their week for is a much fairer system. I don't care if it is point or week based system.  Another problem is that the week has to be available or you get nothing!

Yes, I am still reading this thread too.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 11, 2006)

A frozen system is no market.  Calcified points numbers cannot react to constant changes in supply and demand.

You keep saying that RCI Points numbers can be changed, but I have challenged you to point our where they ever have as to Points resorts (not the crossover grids which were tweaked a bit, but are still a massive fraud on Weeks resorts for prime time).  So far, that has met with a deafening silence.
The fact is that they really don't change.  These calcified numbers are more like the old command economies of the old eastern bloc, where the central authority told everyone what things were worth instead of the give and take of the market.

The only way one could make points dynamic is to publish them solely in an electronic format where they could adjust regularly.  But then again those with overpointed resorts, such as in overbuilt areas, would lose out on the free ride that RCI Points gives them if that were done.




			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> There is no "market" when the exchange does all the work in hiding.  Where in the II/RCI system does the customer get a say?  Where do they see the value of what they gave up or the value of what they want? When do they get to say "yes, thats a fair exchange"?  How anyone can defend keeping the customers in the dark as a better system is completely beyond my comprehension.  It has nothing to do with fixing values (they can always be changed if they are wrong) but simply hiding alomost everything from the consumers (except of course the red/white system that plays into the deception sellers want to foster) "for their own good".  Sorry. That just doesn't make sense.  Open systems will naturally regulate themselves. Secret systems favor the select few. You can't get any more secret than weeks.


----------



## Dean (Sep 11, 2006)

I too would think points is a more open system than weeks (II or RCI) but there are still options that are arbitrary and beyond market control.  While I realize that a more honest system would create the haves and have not's, I think it would be far better in the long run.  I also suspect we'd lose about 10% of the resorts currently open over time but the ones remaining would be in a better position for the long haul.  It likely would mean that any resort who had to rely on forcing off season exchanges and attempting to block rentals would be in the group that would be likely to fail.  I could also see more seasonal resorts closing for off season.


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 11, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> The only way one could make points dynamic is to publish them solely in an electronic format where they could adjust regularly. But then again those with overpointed resorts, such as in overbuilt areas, would lose out on the free ride that RCI Points gives them if that were done.


Why can't they do it electronically? They can make the exchanges dynamic as well as the resorts judging on the feed-back they get from their members. They can if they want to but they may not want to.


----------



## Dean (Sep 11, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> A frozen system is no market.  Calcified points numbers cannot react to constant changes in supply and demand.
> 
> You keep saying that RCI Points numbers can be changed, but I have challenged you to point our where they ever have as to Points resorts (not the crossover grids which were tweaked a bit, but are still a massive fraud on Weeks resorts for prime time).  So far, that has met with a deafening silence.
> The fact is that they really don't change.  These calcified numbers are more like the old command economies of the old eastern bloc, where the central authority told everyone what things were worth instead of the give and take of the market.
> ...


There's no question that any printed system will have a certain amount of carry over and be somewhat reluctant to change on a whim.  But they don't need to.  What they need to do is migrate to a value for each unit (day, week, whatever) that represents to overall value of that unit and to adjust for known variations like holiday timing.  If that value changes over time, the system can change.  There's no reason for it to go up and down on a day by day basis.  Week may or may not do so but they likely shouldn't as well.  If there are wholesale changes over time, the system needs to change.  But just because 3 units came in at the same time for the same resort does not mean those exchangers should be penalized nor should the one lucky enough to deposit when there were few deposits get a windfall.  The system should know the historical info and act accordingly and should only have to REACT if something truly out of the ordinary comes along.  Say there are traditionally 100 units deposited for X resort for Y week and this year there are 500.  The system would need to change to account for what is likely either a long term change or an underlying problem or both.  OTOH, if those usual 100 units are usually deposited a few at a time but this year they are more grouped together, no reason to adjust at all.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 11, 2006)

*We're talking market right now*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> A frozen system is no market.  Calcified points numbers cannot react to constant changes in supply and demand.
> 
> You keep saying that RCI Points numbers can be changed, but I have challenged you to point our where they ever have as to Points resorts (not the crossover grids which were tweaked a bit, but are still a massive fraud on Weeks resorts for prime time).  So far, that has met with a deafening silence.
> The fact is that they really don't change.  These calcified numbers are more like the old command economies of the old eastern bloc, where the central authority told everyone what things were worth instead of the give and take of the market.



There have been changes in the points values, I gave you some a month or two back. But forget that for now. The question is where is the market in weeks? Not just RCI but II as well?  I don't care if points systems exist or not - week systems that use hidden values are not viable.  They have created the dissatisfaction and disillusioned owners wondering why that great 1st week in November they were sold won't trade for July 4th at the Manhattan Club.  If the system wasn't rigged to help developers sell virtually worthless time by hiding everything except the ability to freely deposit your week (nothing about what it might be worth or what you want is worth) then it would be open. They would want the great value of a July 4th week to be known (and sell for many $$$ more) than that dirt week in November. The fact that they hide the value of not only the bad weeks but the good ones as well in order to make the sale of the other 45 weeks a year even slightly viable tells you all you need to know about who benefits from a secret system of values. That is the "rent control" not a published system that lets the user decide what has value and what doesn't.  To call the secret system a market stretches the meaning of "market" even beyond the twisting of a fixed week into "flexible".  Torturing the definitions beyond recognition doesn't make the fixed time less fixed or a hidden system open.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 11, 2006)

What you seem to miss is that any system that is not open about the mechanism to set values (revealing the formula and underlying data) but only publishes the results is NOT an open system.  It only offers the illusion of openness.

The resorts that are propped up by the system are those with an excess of supply, for whatever reason.  One of the biggest groups of excess of supply are resorts in overbuilt areas.  These are propped up in Points by overpointing.
Reveal the mechanism to establish values and these resorts can't be propped up anymore.  Of course that is one reason why someone connected with such a resort would not want the mechanism revealed.




			
				Dean said:
			
		

> I too would think points is a more open system than weeks (II or RCI) but there are still options that are arbitrary and beyond market control.  While I realize that a more honest system would create the haves and have not's, I think it would be far better in the long run.  I also suspect we'd lose about 10% of the resorts currently open over time but the ones remaining would be in a better position for the long haul.  It likely would mean that any resort who had to rely on forcing off season exchanges and attempting to block rentals would be in the group that would be likely to fail.  I could also see more seasonal resorts closing for off season.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 11, 2006)

Supply and demand are real market forces, not a ''whim''.

Calcified numbers primarily help one entity - an exchange company trying to find excess to rent to the general public.  Guess why they came up with it? Certainly not to provide any favor to members!  Numbers that are frozen and cannot respond to market changes are always going to generate ''excesses''.
It all about their rental operation.




			
				Dean said:
			
		

> There's no question that any printed system will have a certain amount of carry over and be somewhat reluctant to change on a whim.  But they don't need to.  What they need to do is migrate to a value for each unit (day, week, whatever) that represents to overall value of that unit and to adjust for known variations like holiday timing.  If that value changes over time, the system can change.  There's no reason for it to go up and down on a day by day basis.  Week may or may not do so but they likely shouldn't as well.  If there are wholesale changes over time, the system needs to change.  But just because 3 units came in at the same time for the same resort does not mean those exchangers should be penalized nor should the one lucky enough to deposit when there were few deposits get a windfall.  The system should know the historical info and act accordingly and should only have to REACT if something truly out of the ordinary comes along.  Say there are traditionally 100 units deposited for X resort for Y week and this year there are 500.  The system would need to change to account for what is likely either a long term change or an underlying problem or both.  OTOH, if those usual 100 units are usually deposited a few at a time but this year they are more grouped together, no reason to adjust at all.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 11, 2006)

Published values do not help members when they are frozen, rigged to favor some types and against others, and lump too many dissimilar weeks together.

A points system would be more viable if it were
1) published in a dynamic format that facilitated frequent changes based on changes in the market.
2) based on an openly revealed mechanism for setting values, coupled with freely availible supporting data
3) valued each week independently where they were not bunched together in overbroad groupings.
4) based on real supply and demand, not favoritism

Unfortunately, RCI Points does NOT do these things.  It is a rather poor illusion of an open system.




			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> There have been changes in the points values, I gave you some a month or two back. But forget that for now. The question is where is the market in weeks? Not just RCI but II as well?  I don't care if points systems exist or not - week systems that use hidden values are not viable.  They have created the dissatisfaction and disillusioned owners wondering why that great 1st week in November they were sold won't trade for July 4th at the Manhattan Club.  If the system wasn't rigged to help developers sell virtually worthless time by hiding everything except the ability to freely deposit your week (nothing about what it might be worth or what you want is worth) then it would be open. They would want the great value of a July 4th week to be known (and sell for many $$$ more) than that dirt week in November. The fact that they hide the value of not only the bad weeks but the good ones as well in order to make the sale of the other 45 weeks a year even slightly viable tells you all you need to know about who benefits from a secret system of values. That is the "rent control" not a published system that lets the user decide what has value and what doesn't.  To call the secret system a market stretches the meaning of "market" even beyond the twisting of a fixed week into "flexible".  Torturing the definitions beyond recognition doesn't make the fixed time less fixed or a hidden system open.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 11, 2006)

*Alice in Wonderland logic*

Carolinian,

The problem that a car dealer faces is that he must make a profit – they can’t use Alice in Wonderland definitions of Supply and Demand.

RCI and II, on the other hand, ONLY make money when an exchange happens – so Alice in Wonderland logic is used to insure exchanges happen frequently and whether the exchange makes any common sense is not relevant.  (Need to make some money for the share holders)  This is possible since RCI and II need secrecy to keep all their dirty little secrets from the light of truth.

I certainly don’t intend to fight Weeks, just exploit it.  I think that II and RCI have the closest thing to a perpetual motion machine for educated owners that one can imagine.


----------



## Warren Scaman (Sep 11, 2006)

*Crystal Ball!*

So we have market forces at work here! Every Exchange company has their Crystal Ball.The more we understand how the black box  works the better we can take advantage of the inefficiencies 

1. The Market cannot be predicted with great accuracy much into the future , like the weather. Fact that the economy changes for the better and worse over time. Every Day several factors Change, by Country, Industry, Company and even People. For the better or the worse. Like the stock market, no real predictor or pattern by quarter. 

2. We either have more money, the same money or less or no money to travel so situations do change over time 3,6, 9 , 12 ,12+ months out, yes for the better and worse. 

Seams like the better we can have something good to trade we are better of 12 months out than 3 months out. However we can take advantage of fire sale properties say @59 or 29 days , if we have the time and some $.

Thank You Tuggers,

Truth and Wisdom is all we want to know!


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Sep 11, 2006)

I spoke with someone who claimed to be a former II and Marriott trainer, althought I did not see any documentation.

He said they get a base salary and then a small commission for each trade they do. Thus, a rep is interested in any trade, no matter if it is reasonable or not.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 11, 2006)

*The system gave value to the worthless and it's ending*



			
				Dean said:
			
		

> I too would think points is a more open system than weeks (II or RCI) but there are still options that are arbitrary and beyond market control.  While I realize that a more honest system would create the haves and have not's, I think it would be far better in the long run.  I also suspect we'd lose about 10% of the resorts currently open over time but the ones remaining would be in a better position for the long haul.  It likely would mean that any resort who had to rely on forcing off season exchanges and attempting to block rentals would be in the group that would be likely to fail.  I could also see more seasonal resorts closing for off season.



You are getting very close to the reality that 2/3 of the weeks at seasonal resorts are very low value. Not to say they can't be made viable - they can - but it takes affirmative action by the resorts to create a demand (value) from use time that has very little naturally.  The weeks advocates want RCI/II to artificially create that value, at no cost to the owners, by freely giving up more valuable trades to those poor value periods.  Thus the "fairness" of the hidden valuations of II/RCI in the secretive weeks exchange systems.  But each resort needs to stand on its own. If there isn't enough demand in a free, not manipulated or hidden "market", then those times go unused (at a cost to the owners of the better times who currently get subsidized by the secret valuations), need to have their value raised (build all season attractions or tie use to local festivals or other reasons for guests/owners to want to visit in otherwise slow times), close the resort in slow periods or let the resort fail. 

The reason weeks advocates are so defensive isn't to protect a perfect system but to perpetuate a system that gives value to otherwise worthless time at others expense. If the system were as good as they want us to believe then resale values for white and blue time would be skyrocketing as a great deal. We know the reverse is true and it is obvious hidden valuations help support that deception.  You don't even have to look at the hot button of weeks VS points - just study the operation of the two major weeks only systems and the problems are painfully clear.  The alternative systems have risen to address the problems - they did not create them. All the bluster about frozen values and other smokesceens are merely attempts to continue the old ways vs a true, open market where owners - not the backrooms - decide what has value and to whom.  The seasonal areas know they lose big in a free market and will fight long and hard to prevent exposure of the system of rigged values hidden from view for over 20 years. It won't work much longer as the Internet has already exposed the deception that lack of information used to hide.  With or without points the weeks systems as they used to exist are heading to extinction. With a little justice it will be the touted class actions that hasten the demise as they force the exchange players to reveal the currently secret valuations. Then everyone will realize there has always been a points system in play but many weeks just weren't valuable enough to take part without the truth being hidden from the players. It won't be the result the supporters thought they'd get from exposing the facts but it would result in a change.  Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 12, 2006)

You are again comparing apples and oranges by using the local car dealer for the auto market in comparision with the national/international operation of an exchange company.  The correct point of comparision is an auto manufacturer, not its local outlet, with the exchange companies.

Auto manufacturers do make adjustements to move inventory, such as the zero percent interest deals or employee pricing to the general public, just to name two.

The difference in Points and Weeks is that in Weeks, the exchange company looks at reality and prices by the market so that exchanges happen for members, while in Points, arbitrary numbers mean that there will be inventory overpriced for the market, which will not move, and therefore can be declared ''excess'' to be rented to the general public for the benefit of the exchange company.  Personally, I beleive a system that makes exchanges happen is much more customer friendly than one that is designed to bleed off inventory for rental by the exchange company.  Points is all about creating rental opportunities for the exchange company, not exchange opportunities for members.






			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> Carolinian,
> 
> The problem that a car dealer faces is that he must make a profit – they can’t use Alice in Wonderland definitions of Supply and Demand.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 12, 2006)

You are quite wrong about where the big excesses of supply in the system are.  They are in overbuilt areas like Orlando, Branson, or the Canary Islands.
That is why it is so easy for a blue week most anywhere to trade into ''red'' times in Orlando.  The market forces of supply and demand say that they have equal value.

Where artifical value is being created in the Points system is by overpointing the overbuilt area.  I can see why someone owning in such an area might like the points system.  Points props up something that the market says has much less value than they would like it to have.  Arbitrary points numbers can attempt to create false value where the market would speak the truth.  That is the same reason they don't want a points system with its valuation mechanism made public.  They want a hidden points valuation mechanism, and no regular market adjustment, so the arbitrary numbers racket of RCI Points can continue to prop up false values for overbuilt areas, just like the myth that everything in overbuilt Orlando is red.  A public valuation system cannot prop up false points numbers.

Rigged values exist where they are arbitrarily set and remain frozen, like in Points, not where they adjust for supply and demand like Weeks.

For those who want to run down blue weeks elsewhere, they should remember that the market says they have the same value as many of the phony ''red'' weeks in Orlando.  

A system based on the principles of a command economy, with the central authority arbitrarily setting the value of everything, which rarely if ever changes, is anything but an open market.  Soviet customers could see the prices, too, but that did not mean they were fair or reflected market forces of supply and demand.

The market decides what has value.  If what is otherwise a desirable area gets overbuilt, then too much supply diminishes its value on the market.  Points attempts to repeal these market forces by setting false and arbitrary values for such areas.  Again, if I owned in such an area and was looking at my own self interest, I might be beating the drums for points, too.

When a supposedly ''good'' week is still sitting on the shelf shortly before use date, then the market has said its value is less than what was assumed so it is given a firesale price to move it.  That is called the 45-day window, and it too reflects market forces.  Points does NOT make that sensible market adjustment for Points inventory.  It is designed to funnel inventory into rentals to the general public instead.

Saying that 2/3 of weeks at eastern beach resorts have very little value may be true of the far northeastern beachs.  It is certainly NOT true in the southeast.




			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> You are getting very close to the reality that 2/3 of the weeks at seasonal resorts are very low value. Not to say they can't be made viable - they can - but it takes affirmative action by the resorts to create a demand (value) from use time that has very little naturally.  The weeks advocates want RCI/II to artificially create that value, at no cost to the owners, by freely giving up more valuable trades to those poor value periods.  Thus the "fairness" of the hidden valuations of II/RCI in the secretive weeks exchange systems.  But each resort needs to stand on its own. If there isn't enough demand in a free, not manipulated or hidden "market", then those times go unused (at a cost to the owners of the better times who currently get subsidized by the secret valuations), need to have their value raised (build all season attractions or tie use to local festivals or other reasons for guests/owners to want to visit in otherwise slow times), close the resort in slow periods or let the resort fail.
> 
> The reason weeks advocates are so defensive isn't to protect a perfect system but to perpetuate a system that gives value to otherwise worthless time at others expense. If the system were as good as they want us to believe then resale values for white and blue time would be skyrocketing as a great deal. We know the reverse is true and it is obvious hidden valuations help support that deception.  You don't even have to look at the hot button of weeks VS points - just study the operation of the two major weeks only systems and the problems are painfully clear.  The alternative systems have risen to address the problems - they did not create them. All the bluster about frozen values and other smokesceens are merely attempts to continue the old ways vs a true, open market where owners - not the backrooms - decide what has value and to whom.  The seasonal areas know they lose big in a free market and will fight long and hard to prevent exposure of the system of rigged values hidden from view for over 20 years. It won't work much longer as the Internet has already exposed the deception that lack of information used to hide.  With or without points the weeks systems as they used to exist are heading to extinction. With a little justice it will be the touted class actions that hasten the demise as they force the exchange players to reveal the currently secret valuations. Then everyone will realize there has always been a points system in play but many weeks just weren't valuable enough to take part without the truth being hidden from the players. It won't be the result the supporters thought they'd get from exposing the facts but it would result in a change.  Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 12, 2006)

*Secrecy or openness - your choice*

Carolinian,

Yes, we should look at GM and Ford to find wisdom with how a well run company conducts business.  The only question is – who will be the fist to hide behind the court’s skirts in bankruptcy court.  I would look to the car dealer on the front line as to how to run a company.

Sure, the dealer has 12 similar cars and within a week or two he knows that they will be sold.  Does he blindly follow computer logic and slash the third car to below his cost?  Of course not, he is in business to make money on the transaction.

By the exchange companies using Supply and Demand, who benefits from these numbers?  We all know that it’s the exchange company that makes out like a bandit.  The owner who put up that week 51 ski week got screwed by II – when they gave up that $60,000 ski week they were assuming that they should have top trading power (TP) to be used for exchanging into Maui for instance.  What they got instead was TP worthy of Orlando only.  They had no warning, there was no blinking screen warning of an oversupply – just II eagerly waiting to slash the TP to nothing so it could make the exchange with my WM credits.

This is exactly why Weeks is being eviscerated by Points in RCI – that fundamental flaw will have the week 51 owners deciding to rent the week out next time instead of being relegated to Orlando.

Points forces both sides of the exchange into the open and the exchange company can only publish what something is worth.  It’s their company and if they under price an area you don’t have to use their system – it’s an open book.

So, the battle is and always has been secrecy versus openness – I choose openness.

Just how many here favor secrecy over openness?  I'm curious.

The openness of RCI Points can be discussed with simply pointing to the good and bad points we perceive.

The secrecy of RCI and II has us guessing to what’s really going on and relying on anonymous sources to establish “facts” that then are used to build a house of cards.  This house of cards is then used for class action lawsuits – we already know what the outcome will be if reasonable jurors ever debate this – the house of cards will flatten.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 12, 2006)

Well, some of you professed advocates of ''openness'' seem to be happy with secrecy of the value setting mechanism, and as long as that is secret the publication of the resulting values in just window dressing.  The combination of a secret value setting mechanism and a published result only encourages insider dealing between exchange companies and developers and fraudulent rigging of numbers.  It is only a sad illusion of ''openness'' that scams members


----------



## "Roger" (Sep 12, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> What you seem to miss is that any system that is not open about the mechanism to set values (revealing the formula and underlying data) but only publishes the results is NOT an open system.  It only offers the illusion of openness....


What about Walmart?  We are not told how they set their prices, when they offer sale items, etc.  We just see the prices.  ("Oh, that would be comparing apples to oranges because Walmart is a retail business.") Oh, I thought that you said any system.  Okay, let's move on.

What about car dealerships? ("No, that would again be comparing apples to oranges.")

Housing prices?  ("Apples to oranges")

Ipods? - that even meets the criteria of being semi-monopolistic ("Sorry, apples to oranges.")  Maybe that should be Apples to non-competitors.

Okay, the only system that I can think of where how supply and demand is established openly is the stock exchanges.  What happens there is buyers OPENLY announce the prices that they are bidding, sellers OPENLY announce what they are willing to sell for, and, when a deal is completed the SEC demands that the negotiated price and the size of the trade be OPENLY announced.  Has RCI or II ever told someone what the trading power was that would have been actually required to complete a trade?  Where are these OPENLY published? (It is not wonder that TUG started doing "trade tests" -- so that someone would at least publish some numbers.)

Maybe its time for Carolinian to announce a bunch of markets that he thinks are comparable to the secret trade systems of RCI and II.  (Secret prices, even after deals are consumated.)  Or, maybe this system is a one of a kind.  Then is it a mere coincidence that this secret system of supply and demand also has had a reputation that has been in the gutter since its very inception?  (... And that Hyatt, Disney, Hilton, etc. - yes, they all have "commie" systems that publish established fixed prices - publish their prices and call their systems "vacation ownership" wanting to distance themselves from "timesharing"?)


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 12, 2006)

*Open wins. Secrets belong in the old Soviet Union*

That we don't know exactly how the points values were arrived at in the various points systems really doesn't matter.  What is important is the fact that the values are published for the buyers/sellers/traders to see. They then decide if the values are correct, over or under valued and act based on that informed decision. If the numbers are wrong it is the exchange system that pays the price - the users already know if the product they desire is "in the right price range" or not.  That is so much better than being told what your time is worth in hints and, oh, it may change tomomow (nudge nudge wink wink).  "Hey, we work for your benefit so it must be kept secret"(I can almost hear the laughter in the phone room as they sucker another top trader into the system only to give them a dog week back in full payment).  Monty Python could do a great scene about the backrooms at the major weeks exchanges. Is the dead parrot any different than the worthless winter beach week they offer as a complete exchange? 

I don't need to know how those values were set but even if I did the system that reveals the results AND allows the user to decide where to use their credits is so far superior to an all hidden system of place and hope that I would (and have) choose it every time.  The fatal flaws of timeshare exchange are harbored in the decades old secrets of weeks valuation and assignment not in any recent attempts to provide more open and defined valuations.  If the resorts that relied on secrets to survive fail it isn't RCI or II's fault. They should be happy they had a 20+ year run at the expense of unrelated resorts and only now have to survive on their own merits. As for the  so called overbuilt areas we'll take our chances and, hopefully, everyone will come out with open trades, known values and independent, solidly run resorts no longer dependent on backroom deals to survive.


----------



## MidlifeTraveler (Sep 12, 2006)

Believe it or not, I am still here, although I took a few days off from reading this thread.

I must say, I'm really learning a lot.  When I get more time to monitor, I have to start a new thread on what other tuggers see as a good trade value resort so I can keep and enjoy my Orange Lake but still be able to get to England.  Apparently, there is no system to determine this and I'm wondering how others have fared.  

I'll continue to read here as well.

And as for Walmart, don't get me started.  Have you read the business section  of the news lately.  There are more articles and books about how Walmart sets a business's profit margin so low that when the product can't be produced at that price, the business goes bankrupt and production is sent overseas where some 12 year old can make $5 a day.  I believe Huffy was the most recent case.  If a company chooses not to play, they're told to take their business elsewhere (which is actually bettter for them but Walmart monopolizes the American shopper)  The answer - don't shop at Walmart and they can't become the mega-store they are.  Sorry - saw the Walmart post and lost my head.  

Let's not turn this into a Walmart thread, okay


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Sep 12, 2006)

Capitalists (Wal-Mart) will sell you the rope to tie their own noose.

I have been to dollar stores a few times, but I never find anything worth buying...


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 12, 2006)

Businesses that are competitive are simply not a valid comparision to a quasi-monopoly timeshare exchange company.  In a competitive business, competition itself provides the mechanism to keep the system honest, and no further mechanism is necessary.  That is not present in a monopolisitic situation.  





			
				Roger said:
			
		

> What about Walmart?  We are not told how they set their prices, when they offer sale items, etc.  We just see the prices.  ("Oh, that would be comparing apples to oranges because Walmart is a retail business.") Oh, I thought that you said any system.  Okay, let's move on.
> 
> What about car dealerships? ("No, that would again be comparing apples to oranges.")
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 12, 2006)

For a system to be honest, both sides of the equation have to be fair.  Overpointing certain areas, like the overbuilt areas is going to make people there happy (as it obviously does) but it skews the system for everyone else.

And the market clearly shows that the true value of many ''red'' weeks in overbuilt Orlando (and other overbuilt areas) is equaivalent to a January week on Cape Cod.  Yes, it is warm, but it also has a huge excess of supply.  Bootleg told us not only that Orlando was one of the handful of areas with large oversupply but that two Orlando resorts, including Vacation Village at Parkway, had the largest oversupply in the entire RCI system.  I can see why those who own in overbuilt areas do not like to see the true value of their weeks and thus opposed a market-based system, but I cannot see why anyone else would take this position.

The command economy in the old Soviet Union revealed the result in the prices, but that did not make the system fair or honest.  Like a big exchange company, it operated essentially as a centrally run monopoly.

Where one central authority is arbitrarily setting values, the most important thing to make public is the mechanism for establishing those values.  RCI Points does not do that, so it only has the illusion of openness.  When the mechanism is hidden, the problem then goes to whether there is any incentive to cook the books.  A published result gives an incentive while a non-published result does not.  Of course, if the exchange company puts its own hand in the till, such as renting out exchange deposits to non-members, there is also an incentive to cheat.

The simplest, yet most essential, thing to make a published system fair, honest, and aboveboard is to publish the mechanism for setting values.  I can see why those who own in overpointed areas would resist that, as it would ultimately end the overpointing, but I cannot see why anyone else would oppose it. 





			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> That we don't know exactly how the points values were arrived at in the various points systems really doesn't matter.  What is important is the fact that the values are published for the buyers/sellers/traders to see. They then decide if the values are correct, over or under valued and act based on that informed decision. If the numbers are wrong it is the exchange system that pays the price - the users already know if the product they desire is "in the right price range" or not.  That is so much better than being told what your time is worth in hints and, oh, it may change tomomow (nudge nudge wink wink).  "Hey, we work for your benefit so it must be kept secret"(I can almost hear the laughter in the phone room as they sucker another top trader into the system only to give them a dog week back in full payment).  Monty Python could do a great scene about the backrooms at the major weeks exchanges. Is the dead parrot any different than the worthless winter beach week they offer as a complete exchange?
> 
> I don't need to know how those values were set but even if I did the system that reveals the results AND allows the user to decide where to use their credits is so far superior to an all hidden system of place and hope that I would (and have) choose it every time.  The fatal flaws of timeshare exchange are harbored in the decades old secrets of weeks valuation and assignment not in any recent attempts to provide more open and defined valuations.  If the resorts that relied on secrets to survive fail it isn't RCI or II's fault. They should be happy they had a 20+ year run at the expense of unrelated resorts and only now have to survive on their own merits. As for the  so called overbuilt areas we'll take our chances and, hopefully, everyone will come out with open trades, known values and independent, solidly run resorts no longer dependent on backroom deals to survive.


----------



## "Roger" (Sep 12, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Businesses that are competitive are simply not a valid comparision to a quasi-monopoly timeshare exchange company.  In a competitive business, competition itself provides the mechanism to keep the system honest, and no further mechanism is necessary.  That is not present in a monopolisitic situation.


So, if you have a monopolistic system (your claim), the best thing that can happen is to let them set the prices in secret.  I can't begin to express the depth of my disagreement with that.


----------



## matthew98 (Sep 12, 2006)

Did you not all set out just to buy a weeks holiday?


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 12, 2006)

*Too much value = excess inventory*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> The simplest, yet most essential, thing to make a published system fair, honest, and aboveboard is to publish the mechanism for setting values.  I can see why those who own in overpointed areas would resist that, as it would ultimately end the overpointing, but I cannot see why anyone else would oppose it.



Ideally, yes. But some exposure is better than no exposure (how it was set or what it is are both kept secret). Half is far better than none. 

And you keep repeating the over pointing argument.  When the values are first published it could be true. But after a while the numbers would have to be brought into line or the best, and by your theory under valued, would be grabbed up and the over valued languish unclaimed.  That isn't what an exchange company wants. 

And interestingly it also explains what is happening in the current weeks systems. The over valued (white, blue times) are able to claim the under valued periods (red, bigger units, better times) and, surprise, the systems are awash in over valued time they have to try to move out.  Sound familiar?  Last call. 9000 point trades. Anything to try to move the ever growing mountain of unclaimed weeks in the foothills of nowhere in November or January.  Expose those values as very low, make them use 2 or 3 weeks to get one better time/location and voila - fair trading restored!   But it sure isn't happening under the mysterious cloak of VEP, constantly changing values (if one believes that is actually occurring) color charts and, of course, the real problem. The never ending need for the developers to make owners think those worthless times are golden traders. That is why they have hated the thought of exposing the values. The only real reason.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 12, 2006)

The key is not having both the incentive and opportunity to cheat.

A published systems of values creates the incentive.  All developers would do most anything for higher numbers in such a system.  Non-published numbers create no such incentive because there is no benefit to raising a number that no one will see.

A published mechanism for setting the values would eliminate the opportunity.  A hidden mechanism for setting the values creates the opportunity.

A system like RCI Points with a published result but hidden mechanism contains both the incentive and the opportunity to cheat.  It is the worst of all possible worlds.

RCI Weeks on the other hand, has the opportunity to cheat but NO incentive, as least as it was devised by Christel deHaan.

What Cendant did that corrupted the deHaan system was to create a totally different incentive to cheat by putting their own hand in the till to rent out exchange deposits to the general public.

The present RCI system is bent all the way around.

The way to fix Weeks is simple - eliminate the incentive by ending the rentals to the general public.

To fix Points, the minimum would be to make the mechanism public.






			
				Roger said:
			
		

> So, if you have a monopolistic system (your claim), the best thing that can happen is to let them set the prices in secret.  I can't begin to express the depth of my disagreement with that.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 12, 2006)

1.  The combination of hidden mechanism and published values is the worst of all possible worlds because it creates both the incentive and the opportunity to cook the books.  No loaf is far preferable to half, because it has no incentive to rig the system (at least without the rentals).

2.  You are right about what an EXCHANGE company wants, but RCI, on the other hand is quickly becoming Rental Condominiums International.  A rental companies wants to create excuses to move ''excesses'' into rentals.

3.  Your theory fails in Weeks, unless you are counting the better weeks that end up in the 45 day window, where their short shelf life diminished their value.  The ''red'' weeks those dog weeks are picking up are those from overbuilt areas which should never have been called red in the beginning.



			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> Ideally, yes. But some exposure is better than no exposure (how it was set or what it is are both kept secret). Half is far better than none.
> 
> And you keep repeating the over pointing argument.  When the values are first published it could be true. But after a while the numbers would have to be brought into line or the best, and by your theory under valued, would be grabbed up and the over valued languish unclaimed.  That isn't what an exchange company wants.
> 
> And interestingly it also explains what is happening in the current weeks systems. The over valued (white, blue times) are able to claim the under valued periods (red, bigger units, better times) and, surprise, the systems are awash in over valued time they have to try to move out.  Sound familiar?  Last call. 9000 point trades. Anything to try to move the ever growing mountain of unclaimed weeks in the foothills of nowhere in November or January.  Expose those values as very low, make them use 2 or 3 weeks to get one better time/location and voila - fair trading restored!   But it sure isn't happening under the mysterious cloak of VEP, constantly changing values (if one believes that is actually occurring) color charts and, of course, the real problem. The never ending need for the developers to make owners think those worthless times are golden traders. That is why they have hated the thought of exposing the values. The only real reason.


----------



## Dean (Sep 12, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> What you seem to miss is that any system that is not open about the mechanism to set values (revealing the formula and underlying data) but only publishes the results is NOT an open system.  It only offers the illusion of openness.
> 
> The resorts that are propped up by the system are those with an excess of supply, for whatever reason.  One of the biggest groups of excess of supply are resorts in overbuilt areas.  These are propped up in Points by overpointing.
> Reveal the mechanism to establish values and these resorts can't be propped up anymore.  Of course that is one reason why someone connected with such a resort would not want the mechanism revealed.


I would say that weeks is a VERY closed system and points is a more (but not totally) open one.  



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> Supply and demand are real market forces, not a ''whim''.
> 
> Calcified numbers primarily help one entity - an exchange company trying to find excess to rent to the general public.  Guess why they came up with it? Certainly not to provide any favor to members!  Numbers that are frozen and cannot respond to market changes are always going to generate ''excesses''.
> It all about their rental operation.


Expecting the value of a week to act like gasoline prices is simply nuts and is inappropriate IMO.  This is a situation where past performance does predict future results.  Barring a major shift for some reason, there is absolutely no reason to have the values fly up and down.  They may need to change if there are major changes over past performance which might occur if a resort deteriorates or long term travel patterns change.  So if the demand for the resort and week stay the same and roughly the same number of deposits come in this year as last year, the trade value should remain the same or nearly so.

If an exchange company can predict roughly how many weeks they'll get at X resort and what the demand for those weeks are (and they should be able to do so much better than we can forecast the weather), they have the basis for the trade value of those weeks.  Then you simply have to decide what formula you're going to use to compare one deposit to another.  There will always be some subjectivity and arbitrary nature to this issue but it is not that difficult.  

I don't believe they sit around thinking up ways to take legitimate deposits and turn them into rentals, I know you do.  I tend to agree with John on this issue, essentially that it's a case of haves and have nots with those who have being supplemented by the have nots and those that are lazy or uninformed.  And the haves are running around with their finger to their mouth shushing everyone.


----------



## Dean (Sep 12, 2006)

I was thinking about this thread today and the car analogy.  Lets equate gas mileage to trade power, put a trip computer on all and reset them at the same time.  The higher the gas mileage, the higher the trade value.  Define them as luxury, upscale, average and low end.  Only allow one to trade for other cars in your classification until 45-60 days out.  As you start driving, the gas mileage varies greatly.  As you get more miles under your belt, the range starts to narrow until eventually it never changes unless there is some long term change such as how/where you drive or a change in the vehicle itself.  To me this is exactly how trade power should work.  There is always some guesswork with new choices but you can generally extrapolate from other similar options to get a starting point.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 12, 2006)

1) If you follow the travel industry, you should know that there are indeed shifts in patterns.  Things do not always follow a script.  Changes in fuel prices will impact how close to home people vacation, for example.

2)  The problem with your haves / have nots theory is that much of it is backwards.  There are too many people in overbuilt areas who think they are ''haves'' when the supply/demand dynamics in fact say they are ''have/nots''.  Supply and demand are the key to everything, and even if demand is very strong, developers can certainly go so overboard on supply by overbuilding, leaving trade power low.

3) As to RCI's rentals, I have only to look at the vast availibility on RCI's rental sites and declining availibility for exchange, the comments of RCI employees like Bootleg and Anon, the comments in the newsletter of the Seasons resort chain in Europe when they jumped ship to II, and the RCI rentals I see on the books of my own resort.

4)  A partly open system is sort of like being half pregnant.





			
				Dean said:
			
		

> I would say that weeks is a VERY closed system and points is a more (but not totally) open one.
> 
> Expecting the value of a week to act like gasoline prices is simply nuts and is inappropriate IMO.  This is a situation where past performance does predict future results.  Barring a major shift for some reason, there is absolutely no reason to have the values fly up and down.  They may need to change if there are major changes over past performance which might occur if a resort deteriorates or long term travel patterns change.  So if the demand for the resort and week stay the same and roughly the same number of deposits come in this year as last year, the trade value should remain the same or nearly so.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dean (Sep 12, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> 1) If you follow the travel industry, you should know that there are indeed shifts in patterns.  Things do not always follow a script.  Changes in fuel prices will impact how close to home people vacation, for example.


Patterns don't change overnight without a reason but they may drift over several years.  Any system can re-center itself every few years and that includes points or weeks.  Most changes that have to be accounted for can be scripted, like Easter.



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> 2)  The problem with your haves / have nots theory is that much of it is backwards.  There are too many people in overbuilt areas who think they are ''haves'' when the supply/demand dynamics in fact say they are ''have/nots''.  Supply and demand are the key to everything, and even if demand is very strong, developers can certainly go so overboard on supply by overbuilding, leaving trade power low.


No question that there has to be a balance.  And I couldn't disagree with the idea that lower rated resorts and lower demand weeks in areas like Williamsburg, Branson, Orlando, even HH could be placed in the have not group if one desired.  But I suspect you want to place off season outer banks weeks (and similar) in the haves while those you dis you would place in the have nots. And that degree of homerism (is that even a word) is part of my issue with your position. 



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> 3) As to RCI's rentals, I have only to look at the vast availibility on RCI's rental sites and declining availibility for exchange, the comments of RCI employees like Bootleg and Anon, the comments in the newsletter of the Seasons resort chain in Europe when they jumped ship to II, and the RCI rentals I see on the books of my own resort.


Once again, there are legitimate ways for RCI to get weeks to rent out, even high demand weeks.  So the numbers themselves don't answer the question and neither does the demand of the week in question.  You may be right, I've never said you were or were not, we simply don't know.



> 4)  A partly open system is sort of like being half pregnant.


I'm entertained by the idea that you prefer a totally closed system to a partially open one.  I'm not saying that points are perfect, they are not from what I can see and there are many points systems that I know a little about.  And what might be perfect for me might not be for you and vice versa.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 13, 2006)

1)  The fact is that there ARE reasons, and patterns DO change, sometimes very quickly.  Fuel costs, SARS, foot and mouth, terrorism are just some examples.  Systems based on calcified numbers simply cannot adjust.  Katrina initially impacted both supply and demand in NO, and for an extended period has impacted demand.

2)  It is not JUST lower rated resorts in the overbuilt areas that have excess inventory.  The two resorts in Orlando that Bootleg told us had the highest oversupply in the entire RCI system were BOTH Gold Crowns, for  example.

I have never said that an offseason OBX weeks could or should trade for a genuine high demand low supply week like London, New York, summer east coast beach, etc.  I have said that the market has said that it, and virtually all other off season weeks as well, is equivalent to the ''phony red'' weeks in the overbuilt areas.  I have also observed that there are ''blue'' weeks some places in Europe that have much better supply/demand curves than most ''red'' weeks in Orlando (or the Canary Islands, for that matter).

My observations about the strength of various areas for trading have to do with two things - supply and demand.

3) There is no legitimate way for RCI to take prime exchange deposits in the Weeks system deposited by Weeks members and rent them out.  Period.  Their taking them to pay for Points Partner reservations by Points members is nothing but a huge fraud on Weeks members.

4) My observation about what is wrong with the illusion of openness of points has absolutely nothing to do with individual preferences.  It has to do with what does or does not corrupt the entire system by encouraging backroom dealing between RCI and developers.

5)  It is interesting that those who want to vocally defend points, also seem to usually also vocally defend RCI's rentals from exchange deposits to the general public.  It must be obvious to all how intertwined these two issues are.





			
				Dean said:
			
		

> Patterns don't change overnight without a reason but they may drift over several years.  Any system can re-center itself every few years and that includes points or weeks.  Most changes that have to be accounted for can be scripted, like Easter.
> 
> No question that there has to be a balance.  And I couldn't disagree with the idea that lower rated resorts and lower demand weeks in areas like Williamsburg, Branson, Orlando, even HH could be placed in the have not group if one desired.  But I suspect you want to place off season outer banks weeks (and similar) in the haves while those you dis you would place in the have nots. And that degree of homerism (is that even a word) is part of my issue with your position.
> 
> ...


----------



## "Roger" (Sep 13, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> 4)  A partly open system is sort of like being half pregnant.


Your anger is getting in front of your rhetoric.  You can't be half pregnant, so, if I am to take this remark seriously, what you are saying is that there is no such thing as a partially open system.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 13, 2006)

*Let's talk insanity*

Supply and demand – how RCI and II use it wrong.  (You don't think for a minute that they use it right do you?)

Carolinian keeps using the phrase Supply and Demand as a dynamic key component of the Weeks program and how it’s too frozen with Points – let’s get the record straight.

*Setup for example:*
You own timeshare X and you paid dearly for it and the MF is eye watering.  You decide that you want to exchange into timeshare Y.  Both are Gold Crown, 5-star type of resorts and similar in price and you never see them when doing searches – they are snapped up instantly with on-going searches.

I, on the other hand, own timeshare W, I bought it for peanuts, resale, and these are the resorts are mediocre at best – all GC and 5-star however.


*Weeks example:*
You lock in a super 4th of July week at your resort (X) – it rents for $4,000 from the developer.  You want to exchange into timeshare Y for Christmas and it too rents for $4,000 from their developer.  You feel like you should get it.

I don’t need to deposit a week, I can make the exchange, if I should qualify and settle up later with the exchange company.  I place my on-going search for Y at Christmas time 15 months before check-in.  My resort doesn’t rent but the average of the rentals is about $1,500 elsewhere.

3 days later I get an eMail from RCI/II congratulating me on my Christmas week exchange into Y.  The owner of X waits and waits and waits and finally at October he is within the 59-day window at II and he knows that his goose is cooked and wonders what awesome exchanger got in front of him and snapped up that Christmas week at X.


*Points example:*
4th of July week at X is worth 90,000 RCI Points, Christmas week at Y is worth 95,000 points, week W has a generic value of 45,000 Points.

Owner X borrows 5,000 credits from next year and snaps up Christmas week at Y.  Owner W can only scrape together 90,000 Points and must make new plans for Christmas.


*Debriefing:*
Owner X screwed up big time – he didn’t understand the insane rules for Supply and Demand that RCI/II use - they are dynamic and change by the second.  His big mistake was to reserve a hot holiday week and minutes later deposit that week into RCI/II.  He took an extra couple of sips of coffee and was 5th to deposit that hot holiday week, the Trading Power (TP) assigned to him, with the insane Supply rules, caused his week to be worth less than an off season week in Orlando.

Of course the sad reality is that if owner X waited 1 day to deposit he would have had FULL TP since the other 4 would have been snapped up by on-going searches.  His mistake was to use common sense and deposit his hot week ASAP - I hope he learned his lesson.

Owner W snapped up the exchange since he recognized the utter stupidity of the exchange’s definition of Supply and more critically understood the nuances of an even more insane definition of Demand.  (I’ll leave this as homework for those who wish to exploit this system) 

Owner X should have used a system based upon Supply and Demand being PUBLISHED to all parties.  The current Supply and Demand are secret in Weeks and thus do not benefit the owners but the exchange company.


*Conclusion:*
Now which of the two make’s common sense?  Which of the two gives all parties fair warning as to what their unit is worth and what other units are worth?  If you can’t figure this out you will be forever depositing your expensive week and owner W will keep going on your vacations.

*Supply and Demand work ONLY when the figures are published *– *when they are secret they work against you*.  Weeks operates in secrecy and thus Supply and Demand work ONLY for the benefit of the exchange companies.

Want to prove it?  I’ve got stock X and I’ll sell it to your for $400 a share.  Is this a fair price?  What exactly does Supply and Demand tell you?  You don’t know do you and that’s what happens in Weeks – you don’t have the foggiest idea and if you think the Exchange companies are on your side you will be doomed to seeing owner W snap up your vacations.


----------



## "Roger" (Sep 13, 2006)

Back and forth isn't working.  Everytime I open up this thread, I see about ten different things said that I disagree with.  Time for an overall statement and be done with it (and I would welcome others following suit).

When I first bought my timeshare in '96, I could not find a single person who thought I was doing a wise thing.  This was well before Points so that was not the issue.  (Actually, about two years later I did find one coworker who owned a timeshare and was pleased.  When asked why I didn't know this, she said "I don't tell people because I don't want them to think I was dumb and taken advantage of."  She, by the way, owned Fairfield points.)

It was easy to identify the cause of dissatisfaction.  Everyone had stories about how timesharing overpromises what you can trade for.  They (or friends of theirs or relatives of theirs) had bought a timeshare and then couldn't make the trades that made buying seem attractive.  (When I wrote about this before, Carolinian's response was maybe I just have dumb friends.  Classy.)

My first trade?  A Hawiaan GC for a somewhat rundown, converted Florida motel.  (Near the bottom of the TUG ratings.  Yet, I have had TUGGERs defend the fact that RCI ensures that trades are reasonably even -- the Weeks system works.)  

I join TUG and I learn some of the tricks of the trade.  I also learn that you need to do this to protect your interests if you own a timeshare.  Further, I find a subculture within TUG (I honestly think a minority) who want to keep these tricks secret (loose lips sink ships).  They prefer closedness to openness. In fact, when one TUGGER acknowledges what he was able to do to a New York Times reporter, some TUGGERs get so nasty with him that he leaves this board.  (I don't blame him.)

Given this climate, it is no wonder that there is a good deal of hostility toward RCI (what Carolinian wants to identify as a monopoly).  The sad part is that when some readers discover another person who is angry, they immediately identify with that person as a protector of their interest.  I say sad because the single largest factor that has led people to disappointment in timesharing is the secret system of hiding the worth of one's purchase.  And, yet that is just what we have some people trying to protect.

I am happy that I can say to the Weeks system "I prefer not";  it has changed timesharing for me from work to protect myself to fun.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 13, 2006)

*Bottom line. I see a better way than weeks can do it*



			
				Roger said:
			
		

> Given this climate, it is no wonder that there is a good deal of hostility toward RCI (what Carolinian wants to identify as a monopoly).  The sad part is that when some readers discover another person who is angry, they immediately identify with that person as a protector of their interest.  I say sad because the single largest factor that has led people to disappointment in timesharing is the secret system of hiding the worth of one's purchase.  And, yet that is just what we have some people trying to protect.
> 
> I am happy that I can say to the Weeks system "I prefer not";  it has changed timesharing for me from work to protect myself to fun.



Roger - I will join you in putting a final comment in place to end my participation in this interesting thread. 

There does seem to be a culture of timeshare owners who enjoy the secret systems of weeks as it does in fact give value to what otherwise would have little, props up high value weeks with subsidy's from those poor weeks via annual fees and empowers those who take the time to fully exploit the serious flaws of the system to their advantage.  It all "works" because most owners aren't aware of the issues and simply take what they can get or become disillusioned (see the hundreds of thousnads of weeks for sale for proof).  

I also found the weeks systems to be unsatisfactory despite having found TUG and other places to learn the insider tricks. While I have the ability to use them I simply don't like playing all the games. I also have a basic dislike for a system that depends on taking advantage of the uninformed to the benefit of the informed few.  

So my portfolio of timeshares are all deeded and all can be used in points systems for trade if I desire.  Of course the key isn't trade at all but the fact that all of our timeshares are in places or systems we wouldn't mind using as long as we own them with never a trade.  With that approach trades are what they were meant to be - an occasional way to get something different . They should never have been the reason for ownership. The advent of the minisystems answered the call for those who do want to trade more than return to one site and we have also taken advantage of those. It's no accident that those systems are all points, not weeks, based as thats how to best get the flexibility and value out of travel to areas with various unit sizes, seasonal variances and resort features.  The secret society of weeks has never delivered a satisfactory method of value adjustment for the majority of the participants in those systems.  

I don't expect that the believers in weeks type exchange will ever happliy switch to a points model anymore than I would want to return to weeks. I do hope that discussions such as this thread have given those who are deciding how to best enjoy timesharing some insight on the various options and a better chance of choosing what will create value for their ownership.  

'Nuff said.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 13, 2006)

Your made up example is NOT how the Weeks system works at least not in RCI!

Further what someone paid for a timeshare or pays in m/f or whether it has award status may not significantly impact the supply/demand curve, which is driven mostly by location and date.

If you really want to see insanity look at some of the weeks that RCI Points say are equal - like mid-August week 33 on the OBX being ''equal'' (in point values) to a late October week 43.  That's the wacky world of RCI Points!




			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> Supply and demand – how RCI and II use it wrong.  (You don't think for a minute that they use it right do you?)
> 
> Carolinian keeps using the phrase Supply and Demand as a dynamic key component of the Weeks program and how it’s too frozen with Points – let’s get the record straight.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Sep 13, 2006)

*Reality insanity*

The example I gave is exactly how II works – I exploit it all the time.  Granted, I’ve not spent the same amount of time reverse engineering the insanity at RCI, but I’d bet that the two systems are very similar internally.

This is, of course, a moot point, no one outside of a VP and few programmers knows the insane Supply and Demand logic built into RCI – we can only guess and assume that the insanity that inflicts II inflicts RCI.

I used price in my example since it is a quantifiable number that does reflect Supply and Demand of a timeshare in the free market.  Granted that even here the price charged by the developer is 4 times it’s real worth but at least it is a number than conclusions can be drawn from.

My statements about Supply and Demand is valid:

*Supply and Demand are useful if shown to ALL parties involved with a transaction.*  Holding them secret benefits one party over the other.  RCI and II use these numbers to insure exchanges happen and every time an obviously lopsided exchange occurs you can bet that insane computer logic based on Supply and Demand favor the exchange company and NOT the other 2 parties involved.

*In RCI Points, ALL the supply and demand knowledge needed to exchange is built into that published number of Points for a unit and week.*  Just like the current price of a stock reflects the wisdom of all supply and demand factors, so does that published Points number.  If owners believe the Points is too low they will not deposit the week - they have all the knowledge to make the decision in that number.  The person exchanging into the unit thinks that the Points charged are too many, they will not exchange into the unit - they have all the knowledge to make that decision.

Stability of a system is key for folks to use it.  Changing supply and demand doesn’t take place on the grocery shelves every time a can of corn is stocked or bought – however that’s exactly how it works for timeshare reservations – they change trading power by the second; at least in the Week system.

Since the Points system allows for borrowing from future use and reservations taking place at 10+ months out, Points calendars need to have stability of at least 12 months – anything shorter than this will result in confusion and distrust.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 13, 2006)

Your arguments about ''stability'' could be used for rent control, wage/price freezes, currency controls and any manner of other anti-market mechanisms.

So when Katrina strikes New Orleans, points tables are supposed to stay in place for a year, even though supply and demand factors have all changed dramatically?  That seems to be repealing reality!  That's whats wrong with a points system.  They cannot adjust to ever changing supply and demand factors.  Heck RCI Points cannot even adjust to changes they know about, like the fact that Thanksgiving sometimes falls on week 46.  In those years they still give the holiday bump to week 47, cheating the owners of week 46 and giving an unfair trade up to owners of week 47.

Points is actually a better system for those who want to exploit the loopholes than Weeks.  Weeks constantly adjusts for supply and demand, so you have to try to figure out the factors just right, which discourages many from trying.

The screwy numbers in Points, on the other hand, are rigged into the system and always there.  Buy a blatantly overpointed resort or the low end of an overbroad grouping that all has the same points number, and you can exploit the fallacies of points.  You don't even have to worry that the realities of supply and demand will come back into sync and keep you from doing your massive trade up.

For example, buy a late October week 43 on the OBX (top market $1,000, some HOA's sell for $250) and for the same points get a mid-August week 33 (value more in the $3-6,000 range resale).  On the rental market the week 33 will bring 3 to 5 times what the week 43 will.

Or buy a blue week 12 (March) at inland Sand Castle Village II in New Bern, NC, 2BR, and get 44,000 RCI points.  For 42,500 points, you can then reserve through RCI Points a summer red week 23 (June) or week 33 (mid-August) 2BR at Ocean Pines, beachfront at Duck on the OBX.  If that is not a massive trade up, I don't know what is!  If you want to step down in size, you can get a week 27 July 4week 1BR at Ocean Pines for 40,500 points.

Points numbers are rigged and frozen so you can always know where the trades up are.

Instead of hypothetical examples, I am giving real numbers out of the points book.

But you focus just on the member, and their abilities to play the system are bad enough in Points.
You completely ignore the fact that publishing the numbers but not the mechanism opens the door to all sorts of insider deals between developers and RCI to cook the books, which there is simply no incentive to do in Weeks.  The key here is MOTIVE.  The Weeks model as developed by RCI founder Christel deHaan left no motive for developers to try to get RCI to rig the numbers.  The Points model as developed by Cendant positively begs them to do it.  That is the biggest single thing wrong with Points.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 13, 2006)

The reality is that in most markets, the details of supply and demand are NOT published, at least not widely.  When I go to exchange dollars for Hungarian forints, I see the buying and selling rates of various exchange houses, which I know are based on overall supply and demand but nobody posts that the previous day X number of dollars were traded for forints and Y number of forints offered the other way.  The next day, I notice the forint is up a bit on the dollar, and I still don't see the specific supply and demand data, but I know that more people were seeking forints than the other way round.  Now the markets here are public, so if I dig hard enough, I can probably find that data, but it is not something that would be easily availible.

I really have no problem with timeshare trading power being public in any system, so long as the mechanism and underlying data are also made public to keep the system honest.  But it is absolutely essential to discourage rigging of numbers in collusion with developers to keep it non-published if the mechanism and underlying data are non-published.

What some of those owning in overbuilt areas fear is a system that revealed that valuation mechanism and underlying data, because then there would be no way the exchange company could get away with overpointing the overbuilt areas.





			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> The example I gave is exactly how II works – I exploit it all the time.  Granted, I’ve not spent the same amount of time reverse engineering the insanity at RCI, but I’d bet that the two systems are very similar internally.
> 
> This is, of course, a moot point, no one outside of a VP and few programmers knows the insane Supply and Demand logic built into RCI – we can only guess and assume that the insanity that inflicts II inflicts RCI.
> 
> ...


----------



## MidlifeTraveler (Sep 13, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Businesses that are competitive are simply not a valid comparision to a quasi-monopoly timeshare exchange company.  In a competitive business, competition itself provides the mechanism to keep the system honest, and no further mechanism is necessary.  That is not present in a monopolisitic situation.



I don't entirely agree.  If consumers reward dishonesty in ANY business by continuing to participate, the dishonesty festers.  It may be more difficult to change in a monopoly but it can be changed.  From what I've read on this website and some other ts websites I've visited to research this issue, there may be some momentum gathering.


----------



## JLB (Sep 14, 2006)

I have avoided this thread becomes it involved Orange Lake.  That is not important to the discussion, but I felt some may misinterpret my comments.

This is a good example of the _coming of age_, the _enlightenment_, of a typical timeshare owner.  Up until two weeks ago, their understanding of timesharing consisted solely of what they were told when they bought (retail I am going to assume) at Orange Lake.

They were told the same everyone is told--largest TS resort in the world, #1 destination in the world, 3 bedrooms ($25000) max out trading power, buy here and go anywhere you want.  Then in the last two weeks, a few folks on an Internet site have explained the truth.

Frankly it took us about a dozen years, because the age of electronic enlightenment had not arrived yet.  We also owned a Week 44 in Orlando and we were told the same things 20 years ago that this owner was told whenever.  The times have changed but the stories have not.

There is a thread asking Madge something or other that this discussion would fit right into, but I certainly am not going to be the one to link this thread to it.  If I'm not mistaken, I did add a note on that thread that there are a few pertinent discussions about it going on.


----------

