No Explanation

[Carolinian]

As to the numbers out there, I quoted Seasons figure of hundreds of thousands of weeks - and that was before many of the current RCI outlets even opened - which is a large enough number of constitute dumping.

Also, if you checked Redweek back when the RCI vendors could cheaply list, some of them had that site loaded down with a wide variety of weeks - again clearly dumping. Now it costs them too much to use that venue.

You also do no seem to grasp what the primary driver of demand is for timeshare. It is location, location,and location, NOT gold crown status.

 

[timeos2]

So ranking is back again?

You also do no seem to grasp what the primary driver of demand is for timeshare. It is location, location,and location, NOT gold crown status.

As we have reviewed before location does play a big role but you tend to overly discount the importance of resort status. They both play a role and while I may overvalue Gold Crown, etc you clearly undervalue it. In the real world away from the small group of timeshare fanatics here people tend to use US based resorts far more than overseas ones, prefer ranked vs unranked resorts and aren't big on off season use times as, in many cases, they cannot get around the need to use the school vacation periods and/or want to be on a beach in the warm weather not off season for fishing or golf. They don't use FF miles as they don't fly that often. They don't go to Europe or even Hawaii much as the airfare alone is prohibitive. Often they drive to locations to save money. They would also pick a "known" vacation area such as Orlando or Las Vegas over taking a chance on a smaller, lesser known or more seasonal area. Thats why there is so much building in those "overbuilt" areas - people go there by choice! Most here on TUG and the other timeshare centric sites seem to lose sight of the fact that the posters are an extremely small sample of all timeshare owners and make up not even 1/10 of 1% of all vacationers. We do not represesent the "average" timesharer in knowledge or use patterns. If we did there would be no developer sales and resales would be king. They aren't and we're not. Judging the world by the standards here give a very false impression of the way things work. And a greatly overated sense of importance in many cases.

 

[Dave M]

I'm sure there are individuals and resorts that leave RCI from time to time, just as customers of any business move on to other vendors. However on a net basis, it's just the opposite, as actual totals would suggest. RCI's confirmed exchanges (as audited by one of the major CPA firms) have increased by about 50% over the most recently reported five-year period from 2000 to 2004.

Thus, although it's evident that there are some unhappy people, RCI is still rolling along. Unless some court rules otherwise, there's no incentive - certainly not a financial incentive - for them to change their model.

 

[PerryM]

I like alligators better

Carolinian,

I’m up for a count – someone name the web site(s) and I’ll take the time to get a count. I’d like to know my competition better.

Hundreds of thousands of RCI weeks for rent sounds far fetched to me. 100,000 / 50 weeks means that RCI has 2,000 timeshares up for rent each week? Just look at all the wacky information/data the main-stream media spouts out today that is refuted tomorrow. Sounds like Seasons has an axe to grind with their “figure”.

200,000 timeshares per year is now 4,000 timeshares rented each week?

Look at MyResortNetwork and they have about 64,000 owners contacted about a rental/sale in the past year. Let’s double that with RedWeek and we are at 128,000 owners contacted about rentals/sales in a year. I’m guessing 50% of that is sales related leaving us with 64,000 owners contacted for rentals.

RCI does that in 16 weeks?

Unless this was a figure published by RCI, I’d say that the number carries with it a bias towards being outrageous to incite a visceral reaction. Perhaps the class action lawsuits will pry this information out of them.

I, personally, would rather believe in the alligator in the sewer rumor over 4,000 RCI rentals a week rumor – the gator has more credibility with me. (Just kidding)

If we are talking about rentals, the renter has a completely different outlook to a timeshare than we owners. They want daily maid service and room service – this is a common complaint from many folks reviewing timeshares in www.TripAdvisor.com which a leader in reviews of rental units.

I just find using these rumors as a basis for making decisions dubious at best; but fodder for lawsuits.

 

[PerryM]

Timeshare rentals are tough!

It occurred to me that the great success that MyResortNetwork and RedWeek enjoy is do the fact that timeshare oriented folks rent thru these sites. Same with VRBO.

Here are a few recent comments from renters from www.TripAdvisor.com about Marriott’s Grande Vista:

"poor customer service....can ruin a vacation"

"Vacation Disaster!!!"

"Small mistakes drag down what could be a great place..."

"Worn out"

"beautiful grounds- room was-Eh, not so beautiful"

"Not Impressed."

"Great resort, poor front desk staff"

I could go on and on but each of the above rated the Grande Vista 1 or 2 out of 5.


Here’s some for Beach Place Towers:

"The Worst Marriott"

"This is a Marriott??"

"A disappointing Marriott"

"Not as expected, would not return"

"Not up to Marriott standards...."

"Who designed this garage?? Your blood pressure will rise."

Again these folks rated BPT 1 or 2 out of 5.


I’ve been to both Grande Vista and BeachPlace Towers and they are top end Marriott timeshares. There is nothing wrong with either but this is a sample of how non-timeshare oriented renters view timeshares.

How would you like to rent to those folks – they all think that these Marriotts are bottom of the barrel rentals.

(Look up your resort – it’s just as bad to those renters too)

Good luck RCI renting a timeshare to this crowd – and 200,000+ more of these per year to boot?

You can now start to see why RCI and II list the rentals at the bottom of the rental range – the market they are renting to really don’t find timeshares that exciting.

 

[BocaBum99]

There is absolutely no evidence that cheap timesharing rentals has had a negative impact on the timesharing market. Timesharing is booming and has for several years.

If anything, cheap rentals are priming the pump and serving as yet another marketing vehicle for drawing more people into the market. All timesharing companies use cheap rentals as a marketing tool.

 

[BocaBum99]

Again, the 45-day window IS a FAIR EXCHANGE.

No, it isn't.

I can prove empirically that the 45-day window does not represent fair exchange.

You define it as fair exchange and then self reference it. In other words, the 45-day window is fair because I define it to be fair.

 

[Dave M]

In my capacity as an administrator....

The discussion in this thread seems to be getting a bit testy.

Make your own points and do so politely or please do not post. That applies to all of the TUG BBS, but especially here and now!

Attacking someone else, putting words in another's mouth, demanding that someone prove their statements are correct or otherwise being disrespectful because you disagree with a position taken (or for any other reason) is not permitted.

I predict that anyone who ignores this warning won't be happy with the outcome. I have had enough correspondence with many of you in this thread so that there should be no misunderstanding.

 

[Carolinian]

You wonder about RCI's statistics. Their rentals to non-members are given regular exchange confirmations, so they may well be included in those numbers,even though they are not really exchanges.

Also, their total membership number, Weeks and Points combined, fell in the UK in the most recent year's figures compared to the previous year. I have posted before about the comment in a resort newsletter in continental Europe about the resort's rep meeting with an RCI exec in their Paris office, where the RCI rep told them that RCI's deposits in Europe were falling.

There have also been some statistics in Cendant's corporate filings that show a decline in actual number of exchanges worldwide two years running, that have been discussed on these boards at length before.

I'm sure there are individuals and resorts that leave RCI from time to time, just as customers of any business move on to other vendors. However on a net basis, it's just the opposite, as actual totals would suggest. RCI's confirmed exchanges (as audited by one of the major CPA firms) have increased by about 50% over the most recently reported five-year period from 2000 to 2004.

Thus, although it's evident that there are some unhappy people, RCI is still rolling along. Unless some court rules otherwise, there's no incentive - certainly not a financial incentive - for them to change their model.

 

[Carolinian]

Who is going to buy the cow, when RCI is giving away the milk for pennies?
Have you followed some of the ''why buy when you can rent?'' threads on some of the t/s sites?

Cheap rentals hit timesharing at its weakest points - areas/times in oversupply. Why own one of those when you can easily and dependably rent those weeks and the others they can trade for cheaper than m/f plus exchange fee plus exchange company membership fee? I can tell you for a fact that resorts are already starting to see bailout from longtime offseason owners who trade, especially those who liked to use the rapidly diminishing 45-day window. That is only going to get worse as time goes on, and it will raise the m/f's of the rest of us if the resorts aren't able to find new markets for those weeks other than to exchangers.

When I read your ''prime the pump'' argument, I think of a good friend of mine whose succesful county commission campaign I managed. She had long marveled at the places I went with timesharing and had been talking about buying a week to do that herself. I told her I would let her and her boyfriend use one of my deposits to do an exchange the week after the election to wind down. Before we had sat down to find an exchange, her boyfriend had found Skyauction on the internet, and got a rental from RCI at a nice resort in Acapulco for a little over $200 total. While in Acapulco, they did a tour at another timeshare resort, and at the sales pitch laughed at the salesman while telling him what they had rented their week for. Since then, she has had no interest in buying, but has done several Skyauction rentals from RCI.
And she and her now husband still like to take the tours and laugh at the salesmen. How, again, are these cheap rentals supposed to ''prime the pump'' for sales and ownership???????

Not all timeshare companies use cheap rentals as a marketing tool. What is your basis for that contention?

There is absolutely no evidence that cheap timesharing rentals has had a negative impact on the timesharing market. Timesharing is booming and has for several years.

If anything, cheap rentals are priming the pump and serving as yet another marketing vehicle for drawing more people into the market. All timesharing companies use cheap rentals as a marketing tool.

 

[Carolinian]

Please read the full content of my posts on this subject. I have given the reasoning of why it is fair repeatedly.

Last minute inventory is distressed inventory.

That's why when they rent it for cash, the rental price is a lot less. Ever hear of Last Call? It only makes sense that as an exchange the price in trading power should also be reduced.

That's also why when you deposit a week at the last minute, its trading power is greatly reduced. When the value is reduced for a last minute week coming in as a deposit, doesn't it make good sense that the value is also reduced for a week going out as an exchange?

No, it isn't.

I can prove empirically that the 45-day window does not represent fair exchange.

You define it as fair exchange and then self reference it. In other words, the 45-day window is fair because I define it to be fair.

 

[Carolinian]

Re: So ranking is back again?

Every location vs. ''quality'' thread I have ever seen on any timeshare board has had location leave ''quality'' in the dust!

In the real world, looking at the OBX t/s rental market (owner rental as oppposed to exchange company rental), the newest gold crown, BIS-Kitty Hawk has by far the lowest rental demand of any OBX t/s, and that is because of its poor location in the woods behind the Wal-Mart, a long way from the beach. According to OBX t/s rental guru Judy Beard, even though BIS-KH owners often priced their rentals $100 cheaper than standard resorts on the beach, the BIS-KH weeks would not rent unless everything on the beach was taken. From what I have observed online at RCI, the exchange demand runs the same way. The market says location, location, location.

Yes, once one gets past the location hurdle, quality does become an important secondary driver. Among the oceanfront OBX resorts, the two oceanfront GC's OBBC I and II (actually OBBC I slipped back to SC last time) have the highest demand on the OBX in the rental market.

As we have reviewed before location does play a big role but you tend to overly discount the importance of resort status. They both play a role and while I may overvalue Gold Crown, etc you clearly undervalue it. In the real world away from the small group of timeshare fanatics here people tend to use US based resorts far more than overseas ones, prefer ranked vs unranked resorts and aren't big on off season use times as, in many cases, they cannot get around the need to use the school vacation periods and/or want to be on a beach in the warm weather not off season for fishing or golf. They don't use FF miles as they don't fly that often. They don't go to Europe or even Hawaii much as the airfare alone is prohibitive. Often they drive to locations to save money. They would also pick a "known" vacation area such as Orlando or Las Vegas over taking a chance on a smaller, lesser known or more seasonal area. Thats why there is so much building in those "overbuilt" areas - people go there by choice! Most here on TUG and the other timeshare centric sites seem to lose sight of the fact that the posters are an extremely small sample of all timeshare owners and make up not even 1/10 of 1% of all vacationers. We do not represesent the "average" timesharer in knowledge or use patterns. If we did there would be no developer sales and resales would be king. They aren't and we're not. Judging the world by the standards here give a very false impression of the way things work. And a greatly overated sense of importance in many cases.

 

[Aldo]

Just out of curiousity, does anyone actually know of any cases where a person rented a week for $264, or $500 or whatever, and then bought, at developer prices, MF, and all?

Seems like an almost impossible sale, to a person savvy enough to go to these sites and rent.

 

[Joe M]

There have also been some statistics in Cendant's corporate filings that show a decline in actual number of exchanges worldwide two years running, that have been discussed on these boards at length before.

The total number of exchanges has been increasing. The number of Weeks exchanges has fallen while the number of Points exchanges has increased by an even greater number.

I keep copies of old RCI Disclosure Guides in .pdf format for both Weeks and Points on my computer so that I can track exchange statistics. RCI and II are required to disclose their exchange statistics by statute. I have the last three reported annual figures for RCI:

2002>>2.49 million exchanges

2003>>2.53 million exchanges

2004>>2.61 million exchanges

The corporate filing you are referencing (I assume - please advise and link if it is some other document) is the Cendant 2004 Form 10-K.

The 2004 Cendant Form 10-K reported a drop in exchanges of 2%. That exactly matches the Disclosure Guide figures for RCI Weeks:

2003>>2.159 million Weeks exchanges

2004>>2.112 million Weeks exchanges

But the Disclosure Guide figures for RCI Points show:

2003>>.370 million Points exchanges

2004>>.496 million Points exchanges

so when the figures are combined there is an overall increase in exchanges.

 

[Dave M]

Thanks, Joe. Those numbers match mine. And they are exchanges only; no rentals, unless the auditors are lying; not something that's likely these days.

 

[PerryM]

House of cards

Does anyone here think that renting of timeshares will go away?

My feeling is that the rentals will increase and eventually to the point that the developers will feel the pressure (or lack of pressure to buy) and start to reduce the rate of price increases and perhaps a price freeze for several years. A drought could overtake the developers as they sit by a few years and wait out the storm of existing timeshares being rented for peanuts.

There is NO reality to the prices charged by the developers – it’s based on 50% sales and marketing costs that could be reduced if they really wanted to “hold the line” for price increases. The remaining 50% is, it self, bloated and only 50% of that represents the actual cost to buy and build the resort – 25% is left for the corporate coffers.

To all of you who think the oil companies are greedy – the timeshare industry is so full of fat that a good trimming is in order.

Does anyone really think that the “Scheduled 1% price increase on Friday” has ANY basis in reality? Just a spread sheet printed out months ago to be used as a tool to scare prospective buyers into signing the bottom line. That 1% can’t be tracked back to reality in any way.

I think that timeshare rentals may be the best thing to hit the timeshare industry “Up side the head” in decades. Timeshares are about 45 years old and were created by a developer to unload unsold condos at a resort.

With the “hocus-pocus” world that timeshares live in, the timeshares themselves may cause the breaks to be applied to the developers and rentals could be the cause.

I keep hearing of a “real estate bubble”, perhaps there is a “Timeshare bubble” that is being slowly deflated by the timeshares themselves.

The prices charged by the developers or even the resale market are so far from reality that a house of cards has more stability.

 

[Carolinian]

Thanks, Joe. Those numbers match mine. And they are exchanges only; no rentals, unless the auditors are lying; not something that's likely these days.

Nobody has ever answered the question posed before where Points Partner transactions are included in the totals.

Also, auditors follow the clients definitions, and if RCI defines the rentals as exchanges, thats exactly how they will show up in the auditors reports.

Further Points totals can be misleading because when you have split weeks, one week counts two or more times.

As reported earlier, the TOTAL number of Points and Weeks MEMBERS in the UK is declining.

 

[Carolinian]

Re: House of cards

Hapimag was the creator of timeshare. It is a points-based mini-system that is still around. I have never heard anyone claim that Hapimag invented timeshare to ''unload condos at a resort''. Care to share your info on the early history of Hapimag????

What should bring exchange company rentals to a screeching halt are the class action lawsuits. That will stop the massive dumping that is distorting the rental market, the exchange market, and the resale market. Exchange company rentals are a massive conflict of interest that should be either prohibited by law or at least required to be disclosed in a meaningful way in extreme detail. I am encouraged by what I have learned about some of the people involved in these lawsuits, and I do not beleive that they are going to let RCI go with a slap on the wrist and a bunch of money for the lawyers, as some of the regular RCI defenders on these boards anticipate.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with ''rentals'' themselves when they are from timeshare owners. The problem is with the conflict of interest of EXCHANGE COMPANY RENTALS from exchange deposits to the general public and the market distortions that creates.

Does anyone here think that renting of timeshares will go away?

My feeling is that the rentals will increase and eventually to the point that the developers will feel the pressure (or lack of pressure to buy) and start to reduce the rate of price increases and perhaps a price freeze for several years. A drought could overtake the developers as they sit by a few years and wait out the storm of existing timeshares being rented for peanuts.

There is NO reality to the prices charged by the developers – it’s based on 50% sales and marketing costs that could be reduced if they really wanted to “hold the line” for price increases. The remaining 50% is, it self, bloated and only 50% of that represents the actual cost to buy and build the resort – 25% is left for the corporate coffers.

To all of you who think the oil companies are greedy – the timeshare industry is so full of fat that a good trimming is in order.

Does anyone really think that the “Scheduled 1% price increase on Friday” has ANY basis in reality? Just a spread sheet printed out months ago to be used as a tool to scare prospective buyers into signing the bottom line. That 1% can’t be tracked back to reality in any way.

I think that timeshare rentals may be the best thing to hit the timeshare industry “Up side the head” in decades. Timeshares are about 45 years old and were created by a developer to unload unsold condos at a resort.

With the “hocus-pocus” world that timeshares live in, the timeshares themselves may cause the breaks to be applied to the developers and rentals could be the cause.

I keep hearing of a “real estate bubble”, perhaps there is a “Timeshare bubble” that is being slowly deflated by the timeshares themselves.

The prices charged by the developers or even the resale market are so far from reality that a house of cards has more stability.

 

[PerryM]

A short history

Carolinian,

As Curley would say “eeeh, certainly”: Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeshare

http://www.thetimesharebeat.com/whatis.htm
http://www.holidayconcepts.com.au/home/history.aspx
http://www.rciaffiliates.com/industryOverview/timeshareHistory.asp?isWinIE=true


The background of that area has a glut of condos being built in the French Alps in the 1960’s – and the building condo bubble burst – how to unload a building full of condos when folks won’t buy a condo? This information was gleamed from doing some homework as to why a developer would bypass selling his condo to 1 owner and chose, instead, to sell to 50 owners – talk about 50 times the work!

The marketing was genius – basically “Why rent when you can own?” – that slogan is used everyday at hundreds of timeshares by thousands of salesreps – it works well. (Of course real estate is implied instead of pre-paid vacations; but at least it's not a flat out lie)

When I eventually stumble back upon the exact link, rest assured that I’ll be certain to post it. I remember finding that factoid by searching for “alps” “condo” and something else that escapes my mind right now. Typing in "Timeshare history" will not give you the correct link.

Here is a similar situation in Hawaii: http://starbulletin.com/1999/06/08/business/story1.html

Just about every market cycles from high to low; when the market bottoms out is when creative new solutions pop up.

Has the same hit the timeshare world? Too many timeshares out there and the first signs are owners/exchange companies dumping rentals at fire sale prices to pay the MFs or other expenses? Hmmm.

Has the 45 year old experiment with timeshares about to morph into something else? Stay tuned.

 

[Dave M]

Also, auditors follow the clients definitions, and if RCI defines the rentals as exchanges, that’s exactly how they will show up in the auditors reports.

Six years ago, I might not have agreed with you, but I would have conceded that such a result could be possible. However, I don't believe there is any chance today that your speculation could be correct.

I spent 31 years, 22 as a partner, in one of the several largest international CPA firms, which still exists as one of the “Big Four” CPA firms. As a still-practicing CPA, I follow closely the changing regulatory and reporting requirements for my profession. Also, because I currently engage two of the Big Four firms to provide services for the entity I work for, I follow closely their policies on reporting requirements.

Thus, I can confidently state that after the indictment that ended Arthur Andersen's existence and some of the fallout over other reporting issues, none of the Big Four CPA firms would intentionally issue an audited report that would have information that a reasonable person would suggest to be misleading.

Further, the RCI audited report on exchanges is designed to comply with the reporting and disclosure laws of a number of states. Florida's laws, for example, make it very clear what an exchange is and what information pertaining to those exchanges must be disclosed in the audited report. Accordingly, the audited report is required to follow the legal definitions, not, as you suggest, the "client's definitions".

Thus, if the term "exchanges" in the report (the most recent one is publicly available at RCI's site) were to include rentals as you suggest it might, that would definitely be disclosed in the report. Since it isn't, you can be very sure that it does not include rentals.

How RCI handles the paperwork for rentals and exchanges is a much different issue than what a CPA firm must report on exchanges. No major CPA firm today would be willing to risk the entire existence of their 30,000-employee firm over a relatively inconsequential definitional issue such as this.

 

[timeos2]

If the facts say it - it may be true

Thus, if the term "exchanges" in the report (the most recent one is publicly available at RCI's site) were to include rentals as you suggest it might, that would definitely be disclosed in the report. Since it isn't, you can be very sure that it does not include rentals.

How RCI handles the paperwork for rentals and exchanges is a much different issue than what a CPA firm must report on exchanges. No major CPA firm today would be willing to risk the entire existence of their 30,000-employee firm over a relatively inconsequential definitional issue such as this.

I really hate it when the facts ruin a perfectly good theory. RCI is adding members, maintaining or increasing trades and renting the excess or unequal times all while making money. Sounds like a company doing what it needs to be successful in a changing marketplace. Now if only the resorts would realize things aren't the same as 30 years ago and adapt to the world of today we could be looking at a boom for timeshares. Those that ignore the winds of change or try to recreate the bad old days will lose.

 

[Carolinian]

It is not the market that has changed but RCI's approach to it. A few years ago I posted in its entirety on the old TUG boards a letter from one of the top RCI execs in the very early days of points. He did not write about adapting to changing market conditions. He wrote of using RCI's power as a ''market leader'' to ''transform'' the market.

As to RCI's numbers, you still have a shell game when they count a single week two or more times as seperate exchanges due to split weeks. Also, is a Points Partner transaction counted as an exchange or not?

 

[reddiablosv]

Thanks, Joe. Those numbers match mine. And they are exchanges only; no rentals, unless the auditors are lying; not something that's likely these days.

Dave, I think you will find that RCI is defining their EV and Last Call rentals as exchanges. They have been doing this most likely to evade taxation and conceal the scope of their rental business. As we all know, RCI has recently started to collect taxes on some of their rentals. This is new policy for them probably implemented on the advice of their attorneys to avoid prosecution for tax evation. When you rent an EV the confirmation you receive calls it an exchange. Why don't you think RCI's accountants are counting it as an exchange? Ben

 

[reddiablosv]

Six years ago, I might not have agreed with you, but I would have conceded that such a result could be possible. However, I don't believe there is any chance today that your speculation could be correct.

I spent 31 years, 22 as a partner, in one of the several largest international CPA firms, which still exists as one of the “Big Four” CPA firms. As a still-practicing CPA, I follow closely the changing regulatory and reporting requirements for my profession. Also, because I currently engage two of the Big Four firms to provide services for the entity I work for, I follow closely their policies on reporting requirements.

Thus, I can confidently state that after the indictment that ended Arthur Andersen's existence and some of the fallout over other reporting issues, none of the Big Four CPA firms would intentionally issue an audited report that would have information that a reasonable person would suggest to be misleading.

Further, the RCI audited report on exchanges is designed to comply with the reporting and disclosure laws of a number of states. Florida's laws, for example, make it very clear what an exchange is and what information pertaining to those exchanges must be disclosed in the audited report. Accordingly, the audited report is required to follow the legal definitions, not, as you suggest, the "client's definitions".

Thus, if the term "exchanges" in the report (the most recent one is publicly available at RCI's site) were to include rentals as you suggest it might, that would definitely be disclosed in the report. Since it isn't, you can be very sure that it does not include rentals.

How RCI handles the paperwork for rentals and exchanges is a much different issue than what a CPA firm must report on exchanges. No major CPA firm today would be willing to risk the entire existence of their 30,000-employee firm over a relatively inconsequential definitional issue such as this.

Dave, the above is a great description of what an acounting firm is supposed to do in an audit, but what is the reality if the case of RCI? Something has changed in the way RCI is treating its rentals. Until recently, they did not charge tax! I presume, they did not pay tax! Why? Because they maintained the charade that it was not a rental but an exchange. Now, this year, perhaps we will see a change in how the accountants tabulate the exchange vs. the rentals. Time and lawsuits with tell. IMHO, Ben.

 

[geekette]

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with ''rentals'' themselves when they are from timeshare owners. The problem is with the conflict of interest of EXCHANGE COMPANY RENTALS from exchange deposits to the general public ..."

EXACTLY.

I don't think that a confirmation saying Exchange means that RCI calls it an exchange internally. They have to track the monies so they would have to be keyed differently. I really don't believe they would risk calling everything an exchange. I think, instead, that every transaction goes thru the same printing process that has always been there.

On the tax issue, it is possible that it's as Madge says: they always paid the tax, but that was difficult based on different states. Now they don't include it in the price and add it in later. So, is the tax based on YOUR state or the TS?