II: Request First vs Deposit First? - high trading power

[seema]

What are the merits of deposit first vs request first, with II - if one is trying to get an week in exchange at a resort which has a high demand to supply ratio of units for exchange. I have weeks at 2 resorts for which II gives a accomodation certificate (I realize that the latter will only be given through the deposit first mechanism) - indicating that II wants the week desperately, for exchange purposes.

 

[travelplanner70]

I also wondered if you lose trading power as soon as you Deposit First. I will be interested in your opinions, too.

 

[Dave M]

According to Craig Urbine, who for several years was an official representative of II to TUG, the trading power should be the same. However, if you start out with Request-First and later deposit your week, your week will then lose trading power.

 

[sfwilshire]

indicating that II wants the week desperately.

I think that might be an overstatement of the meaning of an AC. II sends me offers all the time giving an AC for ANY week during certain time periods. They also sent me a surprise one when I deposited the 1br part of my Orlando timeshare. While it WAS week 52, I doubt they wanted it "desperately".

It seems to me that II just uses the ACs as a way to dispose of less popular weeks at a reasonable fee. Mine expired unused. A lot of them probably do.

JMHO, of course.

Sheila

 

[Dave*H]

My impression:

Request First
------------
Pros: Don't have to give up the unit you already have until you find something better.
Cons: The further in advance you deposit your unit, the more trading power you have. As a result, your trade is continually losing power. (There is debate about how quickly this happens.)
When to use: You are willing to use the week you have but would consider "better" options. You want to shop more than one exchange service.
Example: You have a summer week in the mountains that is always fun, but if you could get a week in Maui, you would make the change.

Deposit First
------------
Pros: Fixes the trading power at the time of the deposit. Allows you to postpone the decision on when and where until well after the date of the week being deposited.
Cons: You give up control of your week and are somewhat at the mercy if II.
When to use: You don't want to use the week you have and feel that you can come up with a better choice through II.
Example: You have a week 50 in the mountains, but the kids are in school, snows not that good yet, and you're going later in the ski season anyway. Deposit it, and set up an ongoing search for Maui. If nothing comes up in the next year, trade for Orlando instead. The kids always enjoy that trip.

 

[Dave M]

Dave H -

Your pros and cons read make it appear that depositing a week has higher trading power within II than using Request-First. Not so, assuming either action would be taken on the same day.

Assume that today you make a reservation for your week for some date in 2006. You then get on the phone with an exchange request to make and try to decide whether to deposit your week or do a Request-First. No matter which you choose, your trading power will be the same. Today's date locks in the trading power. It's only if you later change your mind and switch from Request-First depositing your week that your trading power will be diminished.

See, for example, Craig Urbine's response in this thread from the old BBS.

 

[Dave*H]

Dave M -
Thanks for the clarification. I was not aware that placing an ongoing request first search would lock in trading power. I'm not sure this makes sense from II's standpoint through. The longer II has your unit, the more time they have to make a match, and the more valuable is it. With request first, the unit has an ever diminishing value until the exchange is actually made. If what Craig said is accurate, II does not penalize you for this. Good to know.

 

[Dave*H]

From Exchange Procedures and Priorities, section 12(e) of the Interval International '05 Buyers Guide (http://www.intervalworld.com/pdf/iw/2005-buyers-guide.pdf), one of the factors that affects trade priority is:

The amount of time in advance of the first date of occupancy at
which the Home Resort vacation week is relinquished to II.​

This seems to contradict what Craig said since under request first a week is not relinquished until the exchange is made. I'm not saying Craig is not right, just that his statement conflicts with offical II documents.

 

[Dave M]

I don't believe there's a conflict. What that passage fails to mention is that the measurement point for a request-first is the date the request is made. hus, in the example, the two dates are the same. If the request first is converted to a deposit, then there is a loss of trade power.

Craig was an official rep to TUG. There is no evidence that he ever gave us bum info.

 

[seema]

Craig was an official rep to TUG. There is no evidence that he ever gave us bum info.

Will we get someone eventually to replace him, on the II forum?

 

[Dave M]

No. II apparently decided that having a rep here was not in its best interests.

 

[lweverett]

While Craig did say that either request form would result in the same "trade power", you do have to remember, as sincere as you think he may have been, who signed his pay check. I would be more convinced if he had made his comment after he left II. As a business decision, I think it would be hard to give a high demand week to a deposit first exchanger, and get nothing but the exchange fee in return, instead of a request first exchanger who is offering the same exchange fee and also a desirable deposit.

 

[Dave M]

I don't believe there were many - perhaps any - who regularly followed Craig's posts here who had any questions about his integrity or the accuracy of his posts here. Further, there are some TUGgers who would take significant offense to your suggestion. One of those TUGgers is Craig himself!

Also, the complete opposite of your suggestion could be easily argued:

"As a business decision, I think it would be hard to give a high demand week to a" request-first exchanger, rather than to a deposit-first exchanger who deposited a week to give II maximum time to effect an exchange with the deposited week.

 

[seema]

I was at a sales presentation at the Maui Ocean Club resort. The salesperson was a owner at that resort. He said that for high demand resorts (obviously, the Maui Ocean Club is near the top, in the II list of resorts), it is more effective to request first for another high demand week somewhere else, then depositing it first; II is eager (although I would say that "desperate" is not an inaccurate term to use) to get that week, and it will give something back that has high trading power - in one case, this rep asked for Atlantis on a request first basis; the trade was completed within 24 hrs of the request.

I suspect that a resort with a low to moderate trading power, not associated with an accomodation certificate, should be deposited first; I can not see any advantage of one requesting a specific exchange first, for that unit.

 

[CraigU]

I stand behind ALL of my previous posts as my understanding of the system as it was then. I was able to answer questions definitively as I participated in most of the decision making as it relates to the business rules governing the system.

I never received feedback, comments or input of any sort from any of my superiors as it relates to this site. However, I frequently presented information gathered here to help support my positions as it related to policy changes. (i.e. allowing guest certificates on AC's)

My participation on this site was on my own as a result of my friendship with Fern Modena.

you do have to remember, as sincere as you think he may have been, who signed his pay check. I would be more convinced if he had made his comment after he left II.

 

[CraigU]

Thank you for your support. I didn't take offense though as it is a perfectly reasonable response to someone who doesn't know me.

Your point below, in my mind, was exactly the thought process behind the decision referenced.

Further, there are some TUGgers who would take significant offense to your suggestion. One of those TUGgers is Craig himself!

Also, the complete opposite of your suggestion could be easily argued:

"As a business decision, I think it would be hard to give a high demand week to a" request-first exchanger, rather than to a deposit-first exchanger who deposited a week to give II maximum time to effect an exchange with the deposited week.

 

[timeos2]

I suspect that a resort with a low to moderate trading power, not associated with an accomodation certificate, should be deposited first; I can not see any advantage of one requesting a specific exchange first, for that unit.

There is a very big reason not to give II any week until you have something you can accept in hand. Once they have your week you are bombarded with requests to take different resorts than what you request, smaller units than what you request, different dates than what you request at the least. If you have already given them your time you are stuck and, most likely, end up taking something you really didn't want just not to lose what you already gave up. With request first you control the process as much as anyone can in a weeks system. If they don't deliver you don't deposit - makes things simple. I find it interesting that RCI has always said they can't do request first yet they do with Fairfield points owners. Tells me there is a real value to that model and they want it to be a premium product dangled as a perk. The fact that II offers it to all takers means you should take advantage. Our results with regular deposit weeks with II was less than satisfactory. With request first it was reasonable although once we simply killed the exchange request in favor of renting when it appeared II wasn't going to deliver. The best results with II have been by utilizing the Sunterra priority through Club. Using that we have obtained Marriott units for only part of our annual Club allotment. That same deposit as a week in II only got us offseason, small units so the priority carries some real value in the II system. Same would apply to Marriott, DVC and other priority groups all at the expense of the individual depositor. Use request first if you try II with a "mere" week to trade is my advice.

 

[seema]

Thank you for your support. I didn't take offense though as it is a perfectly reasonable response to someone who doesn't know me.

Your point below, in my mind, was exactly the thought process behind the decision referenced.

Thank you, for your input.

PS-I wish you were still with II, and still II's representative on tug. It is a shame that RCI has official representation on this bulletin board, but II no longer has, since you left - your information was (and is) invaluable.

 

[funtime]

I would not discount the value of the AC certificate. In contrast to the RCI one on one weeks, the II AC certificate can get pretty good stuff in the system. I deposited a late summer Vail one bedroom week (Sandstone Creek Club) and got an off season Marriott Newport Coast two bedroom (early December) with it. With the AC, I picked up a Marriott one bedroom Grand Vista that started the last day of June. True these were both technically off seasons but I was very happy with the exchanges and got an extra vacation with the AC. AC are given only on deposit first exchanges and only for certain resorts and time periods.

 

[rickandcindy23]

I am also a big fan of the AC's. As a huge Disney fan, we use our bonus weeks for Orlando and can get the weeks we want. I am so impressed with the AC's with Interval that I sold our week that didn't get one. Now we own two weeks at resorts with low MF's and get two AC's. Our total cost for these four weeks of vacations are just $450 per week. Most resorts we visit are 5 star.

I noticed that my trade power for my resort when deposited just sixty days out was the same as next year's week, I pulled exactly the same with both weeks. II seems to not require that year or more that RCI does.