II Implemented a Points System?

[PerryM]

The gory details...

I think this provides insights into how exchange companies implement trading power. So, the theory of dynamic trading values in a weeks' exchange company is probably more wishful thinking than anything else. At the end of the day, a number needs to be assigned and the assignment process, no matter what it is, is subject to lots of problems.

I can see multiplying the Points by some decaying factor that represents a rotting fish - an exchange that wasn't snapped up instantly by an on-going search but sits out there for months - it needs to lose Trading Power so II can make money with an exchange. However these numbers are so big, relative to each other, that to decay from 1 to .75 is a HUGE amount - 25% decay to the next number seems to be just too big a leap.

However, dynamic values representing the "worth" of a unit doesn't seem to be part of the secret number which we briefly saw - kind of like lifting the covers on the operating table - just a bunch of gore underneath.

 

["Roger"]

They listened to your complaint about the insanity of us using a 3BR to pull a 1BR and getting charged only for the 1BR!
...

Intriguing.

I don't think you were seeing trading power (as measured by II) per se. I would think CraigU would know something about what trading power numbers look like. What then?

Most likely, we are seeing the numbers which Worldmark and II use (as negotiated by contract) to determine how much value Worldmark has to put back into the II system to compensate for the trades that Worldmark owners make. If, for example, a Worldmark owner were to take a 2BR unit at the Blue Tree resort on Sept. 15, Worldmark would have to put 1 unit of value from their system back into II. On the other hand, if a different owner were to garner a 2Br unit at the same resort, Worldmark would have to put 2 units of value back into the system. (See Rhonda's post #17.)

Notice, this says nothing about what the Worldmark owner herself will be required to give up (that is, the insanity of having to give up a three bedroom to get a one bedroom also known as the insanity of the Weeks system). It only addresses how much value Worldmark itself has to give up.

Also notice that Worldmark does not have to compensate in kind (a Hawaii unit for a Hawaii unit). That is often one of the complaints we hear about the RCI Points system. (Common complaint #241: "I think that if someone from the Points system takes a New Hampshire week from the Weeks system, then RCI should have to put a New Hamshire week back into Weeks in compensation.") Well, apparently the interface between Worldmark and II works just the same as between Points and Weeks.

[Note: I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. If Weeks is short on Hawaii weeks and long on New Hampshire weeks, why would it be a good thing for Points to replace New Hampshire with New Hamshire?]

I am sure there is more to observe/speculate about, but this is what I make of this oddity for now. Intriguing.

 

[BocaBum99]

Intriguing.

I don't think you were seeing trading power (as measured by II) per se. I would think CraigU would know something about what trading power numbers look like. What then?

Most likely, we are seeing the numbers which Worldmark and II use (as negotiated by contract) to determine how much value Worldmark has to put back into the II system to compensate for the trades that Worldmark owners make. If, for example, a Worldmark owner were to take a 2BR unit at the Blue Tree resort on Sept. 15, Worldmark would have to put 1 unit of value from their system back into II. On the other hand, if a different owner were to garner a 2Br unit at the same resort, Worldmark would have to put 2 units of value back into the system. (See Rhonda's post #17.)

Notice, this says nothing about what the Worldmark owner herself will be required to give up (that is, the insanity of having to give up a three bedroom to get a one bedroom also known as the insanity of the Weeks system). It only addresses how much value Worldmark itself has to give up.

Also notice that Worldmark does not have to compensate in kind (a Hawaii unit for a Hawaii unit). That is often one of the complaints we hear about the RCI Points system. (Common complaint #241: "I think that if someone from the Points system takes a New Hampshire week from the Weeks system, then RCI should have to put a New Hamshire week back into Weeks in compensation.") Well, apparently the interface between Worldmark and II works just the same as between Points and Weeks.

[Note: I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. If Weeks is short on Hawaii weeks and long on New Hampshire weeks, why would it be a good thing for Points to replace New Hampshire with New Hamshire?]

I am sure there is more to observe/speculate about, but this is what I make of this oddity for now. Intriguing.

Roger,

I think you nailed it. That makes the most sense to me.

 

[PerryM]

Intriguing.

I don't think you were seeing trading power (as measured by II) per se. I would think CraigU would know something about what trading power numbers look like. What then?

Most likely, we are seeing the numbers which Worldmark and II use (as negotiated by contract) to determine how much value Worldmark has to put back into the II system to compensate for the trades that Worldmark owners make. If, for example, a Worldmark owner were to take a 2BR unit at the Blue Tree resort on Sept. 15, Worldmark would have to put 1 unit of value from their system back into II. On the other hand, if a different owner were to garner a 2Br unit at the same resort, Worldmark would have to put 2 units of value back into the system. (See Rhonda's post #17.)

Notice, this says nothing about what the Worldmark owner herself will be required to give up (that is, the insanity of having to give up a three bedroom to get a one bedroom also known as the insanity of the Weeks system). It only addresses how much value Worldmark itself has to give up.

Also notice that Worldmark does not have to compensate in kind (a Hawaii unit for a Hawaii unit). That is often one of the complaints we hear about the RCI Points system. (Common complaint #241: "I think that if someone from the Points system takes a New Hampshire week from the Weeks system, then RCI should have to put a New Hamshire week back into Weeks in compensation.") Well, apparently the interface between Worldmark and II works just the same as between Points and Weeks.

[Note: I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. If Weeks is short on Hawaii weeks and long on New Hampshire weeks, why would it be a good thing for Points to replace New Hampshire with New Hamshire?]

I am sure there is more to observe/speculate about, but this is what I make of this oddity for now. Intriguing.

The exchange rate is quite simple: 10,000 WM credits for a 2BR Red week, 9,000 WM credits for a 1BR, and 8,000 WM credits for a Studio, with 4,000 WM credits for 59-days or less of any size.

I see no reason to keep numbers like .75 or 1.42 on file for a WM exchange.

But, I only had 15 minutes to draw a conclusion - mine still stands - Trading Power; and not just for WM.

 

["Roger"]

The exchange rate is quite simple: 10,000 WM credits for a 2BR Red week, 9,000 WM credits for a 1BR, and 8,000 WM credits for a Studio, with 4,000 WM credits for 59-days or less of any size.

Perry,

I am not sure why you are citing those numbers. My post says nothing about what Worldmark owners pay for different sized units. It has to do with the arrangements between Worldmark and II.

... But, I only had 15 minutes to draw a conclusion - mine still stands - Trading Power; and not just for WM.

Maybe you are unaware of who CraigU is. He was, until about two or three years ago, a long time VP for II. He is likely to know what the trading power numbers within II look like.

Maybe 15 minutes to think wasn't enough.

 

[PerryM]

Perry,

I am not sure why you are citing those numbers. My post says nothing about what Worldmark owners pay for different sized units. It has to do with the arrangements between Worldmark and II.


Maybe you are unaware of who CraigU is. He was, until about two or three years ago, a long time VP for II. He is likely to know what the trading power numbers within II look like.

Maybe 15 minutes to think wasn't enough.

The arrangement between II and WorldMark have no bearing with the Points that were displayed - as far as I can determine.

Here's how WM works in II:
I get a 2BR Red week II exchange - I cough up 10,000 WM credits.
I then find a studio in Red week and cough up 8,000 WM credits.

At the end of a month or quarter II turns in an invoice to WM for 18,000 WM credits in this case. WM then turns over a basket of weeks in various seasons and locations and unit sizes but they total up to 18,000 WM credits.

I don't see where another number is needed - it's up to WM to fulfill a generic basket of weeks/sizes/seasons. The description the programmers gave was "Points" and not "Units". If it had said "Units" I would agree with your assessment.


CraigU has not been an employee of II for about 2 years now, if I'm not mistaken, and a new way to handle exchanges could have been implemented - we can only guess.

However, I'm not going to defend my guesses - just present what I see as enough information to implement an exchange company based upon the Points II displayed.


The II programmers seem to be error prone and maybe next time we will get more information - just wait for the next screw up.

 

[CraigU]

I called a friend who is still employed in a high level position who is familiar with comparable exchange and they advised me the formula used has not changed. I can't explain what you were seeing but it wasn't trade power.

CraigU has not been an employee of II for about 2 years now, if I'm not mistaken, and a new way to handle exchanges could have been implemented - we can only guess.

 

[PerryM]

Pixie Dust...

I called a friend who is still employed in a high level position who is familiar with comparable exchange and they advised me the formula used has not changed. I can't explain what you were seeing but it wasn't trade power.

Craig, I believe you.

So what would II have that:

1) Identical units (2BR unit at same resort) that changed in value from 1 to 1.42 to 2 over the course of many months.

2) Had only 6 numbers (.5,.75,1,1.42,2, and 2.42) among ALL units I looked at - about 200 or so in 15 minutes.

3) II only says they have 3 seasons - I believe them.


I can devise an exchange system based upon those 3 criteria. I can see where a unit could "age" over time and slip from a 2 to a 1.42 and that would provide for inventory that is not moving.


I just don't see where anything else is needed to make Trading Power - well except for pixie dust.


Until another explanation comes along that uses those 6 numbers I'll stick with Trading Power. But, let me say again, I don't disbelieve anyone for saying it's something different.

 

[CraigU]

Perry:

You may be looking at "conversion numbers" from Worldmark points relating to unit sizes to the comparable exchange system or as someone suggested the "pay back" values which would be my best guess. I don't know in what direction the points changed values but usually the points required for various unit sizes diminishes as the occupancy date approaches. If the pattern was the same on the inventory you were viewing, we may have stumbled upon the explanation with Rogers help.

As far as I.I. having three color codes, I believe it explains that color codes are not used to measure comparable exchanges. Each specific week has a value which is calculated using the factors outlined in their terms and conditions under comparable exchange.

1) Identical units (2BR unit at same resort) that changed in value from 1 to 1.42 to 2 over the course of many months.

3) II only says they have 3 seasons - I believe them.

 

[Carol C]

Other observations:

The point values do NOT follow the resort's specified seasons. Several Orlando resorts marked "Red 1-52" show lower point values for Sept 15th arrivals than the same unit one day later. Example:

Blue Tree Resort at Lake Buena Vista • BLT
Orlando, FL, USA
Red 1-52

Sep 15 2007 - Sep 22 2007, 2BR -> 1 Point
Sep 16 2007 - Sep 23 2007, 2BR -> 2 Points

It boggles the mind! Why would a Saturday check-in week (Sept 15) cost half the pts of a Sunday check-in wk (Sept 16)?

 

[CraigU]

Perhaps one was within the flexchange window and the other not when availability was checked on this one? Just a guess...

It boggles the mind! Why would a Saturday check-in week (Sept 15) cost half the pts of a Sunday check-in wk (Sept 16)?

 

[PerryM]

Nothing but the facts...well sort of...

Perry:

You may be looking at "conversion numbers" from Worldmark points relating to unit sizes to the comparable exchange system or as someone suggested the "pay back" values which would be my best guess. I don't know in what direction the points changed values but usually the points required for various unit sizes diminishes as the occupancy date approaches. If the pattern was the same on the inventory you were viewing, we may have stumbled upon the explanation with Rogers help.

As far as I.I. having three color codes, I believe it explains that color codes are not used to measure comparable exchanges. Each specific week has a value which is calculated using the factors outlined in their terms and conditions under comparable exchange.

I build stock trading systems for a living - thousands of them in 20+ years. I only have 6 pieces of information to work with and the combinations and permutations are horrific from just those 6 bits of data.

With II we only have a few precious bits of information (at least I do) and we can't extrapolate from the givens:

1) WM owners give up WM credits in a fixed table, e.g. 8,000 WM credits for a Red studio.

2) When I called II 2 years ago and asked for a detailed explanation of how all this worked I was passed on to a systems analyst/programmer and the scenario I've outlined is what was explained to me - the basket of WM units in exchange for the invoice of WM credits.

3) My conversion with the analyst never brought up the topic of "like for like", e.g. 150 2BR Red weeks, 75 1BR Yellow weeks, 55 Studio Green weeks were exchanged and thus this is the basket of units WM must return.

4) The Points that magically appeared and then disappeared - they were Points and a very specific set of 6 spread among 3 seasons with 4 unit sizes.

5) The Points were removed within 2 hours of my report - I know of bugs 1 year old in II.

6) The Points seem to not fit any other purpose but Trading Power.



So from my prospective those 6 facts/suppositions lead me to conclude that we saw something very important to II, and THE most important topic is Trading Power.

But, I am open to adding more facts/suppositions that could completely change my scenario.


Am I wrong - of course I can be wrong,

 

[PerryM]

It boggles the mind! Why would a Saturday check-in week (Sept 15) cost half the pts of a Sunday check-in wk (Sept 16)?

Simple: duplicates. If the 59-day window was involved the Points mean nothing.

Saturday check-in is very popular and a duplicate deposit would come in a lower Trading Power so II can get a much larger universe of searches to find it.

Nothing that I've every read or inferred with II or RCI leads me to conclude that making money for the II/RCI stockholders isn't their all consuming drive.