RCI Weeks to offer value transparency

[Carolinian]

the monster mega resorts that seem determined to build themselves into worthlessness due to far too much inventory

.

Well, it seems that maybe you CAN understand the concept of why overbuilding causes excess supply and therefore lower trade value, after all! And you even admit that it occurs in Orlando.

 

[Carolinian]

Mel, you participated in the lengthy thread on the lawsuit, as one of the RCI defenders. Have you totally forgotten what was in that thread.

There was a ''settlement'' which was really more of a sellout, because the slimy class action lawyers saw an opportunity to make a boatload of money for themselves by selling their clients down the river with an agreement to put a bandaid on a cancer, not address any of the issues in the lawsuit, and take a few stupid trinkets that were absolutely unacceptable to most class members that paid attention. That is why many individual class members got involved to try to stop the sellout / settlement and move forward with the case. The settlement is not anything the members wanted. It served the purposes of RCI and the purposes of the class action attorneys and nobody else. It is not a standard to compare anything against. What was ''offered in the settlement'' had not a darn thing to do with what was sought in the lawsuit.

The only prodding I am aware of involving state AG's was with Missouri and I don't know how many responded to prod him. Having worked in state government in a rather high position, I can tell you that AG's have more opportunities to file class actions than staff to file them. They are therefore selective. You have to get to the right person to get them to understand the issue. Volume alone sometimes works but more often not. I have not even approached my state AG because the AG is political and those around him who have decision making power on things like this are political appointees. Having served in state government as a political appointee of the opposite party, the chances that they would listen to me on anything are slim and none. In two years, based on a recent scandal at the SBI, I suspect my party will have a good chance to take the AG position. Then it will be a whole different ballgame.

As to proof that RCI is looting the exchange system of good inventory for rentals, Anon on TimeshareTalk and Bootleg here have both had a look at RCI's computers, since they work(ed) there and told us what RCI was doing. Another RCI employee who posted at TimeshareTalk actually put up screen shots from RCI computers showing RCI diverting prime spacebank deposits to rentals.

The biggest complaint about RCI these days is NOT anything to do with knowing what a week is worth. It is that the quality of what is offered for exchange has dramatically gone down from what it used to be. That started happening after RCI started diverting inventory to rentals.

The charts in the European directory are simply the best thing RCI has provided yet. There is not the need for formulas there, as these are not precise number that have absolute control over what you can trade for. They are just informational about the system. Controlling numbers DO need the date to back them up. Charts that are merely informational do NOT.

I did indeed look at your ''charts'' enough to identify exactly what they were, and that is the RCI seasonal color codes all collected in one place. That is absolutely nothing new, and is indeed only ancient history.

What will make people give up timesharing, and has already been making people give up timesharing is RCI moving the goalposts. What Cruisin saw with his resort will do that. Fortunately that resort is dual affiliated, so instead of giving up timesharing, they will simply have a flight to II. Depleting the better inventory to divert it to rentals is one aspect of moving the goalposts that has hurt timesharing. Degrading the 45 day window is another that has already happened. This will be the third wave.

If that was all the class action was about, then why was there even a settlement? It was about what members perceived as being the result of the rentals, and they wanted to see an improvement or be compensated for the changes to the exchange system.

Why is it that despite prodding by many, none of the Attorneys General have filed suit against RCI. Is it perhaps because they are not legally doing anything wrong? Is it perhaps because RCI has an annual audit of what goes into and out of the exchange pool, and there is no proof that RCI is cooking the books?

Look at why RCI and II are successful. They provide exchanges for the vast majority of their members. For those who are not successful getting an exchange, the biggest complaint has been not knowing what their week is worth, and therefore not knowing what to expect as a fair exchange.

Whether this is what the lawsuit was about or not is the red herring. The only thing this has to do with the settlement is that it is providing MORE than what was offered in the settlement. RCI doesn't have to do this, but has chosen to do so.
AGAIN, your ''charts'' are NOTHING but the RCI color codes collected in one place. They are nothing new. Indeed most of those color codes were established decades ago and for the most part not changed since. Have you just discovered the color codes or is this a red herring?

The availibility tables are more up to date. For example, they show the real story based on what actually comes into the system on the seasons of the ''red all year'' areas under the color codes.
Show us all the proof that your charts are more accurate, and more up to date. Did you even look at the charts I provided - week by week, resort by resort data, not categorized by area. There are times in other areas where I don't agree with the red designation, but that doesn't change the fact that RCI believes the demand at those times deserve the red designation.

If you want to expand the categories to differentiate between Orlando in Peak times and slow times, shouldn't we also differentiate the Blue weeks too? There's a pretty big difference between the best and worst of them too. You claim this new system is worthless without the formula to back it up - yet you stick by your European charts which also don't show any formula. What we're about to get will be even more detailed than your charts, yet you insist the new system will be worse than what we have. Why is that?
As to your theory of RCI picking up business, please refer to Cruisin's posts. That is the reality of what RCI will face.
People are upset with the information (or lack thereof) they have right now. When RCI shuts down to implement this new system, I bet it will already be mostly in place - they need to shut down to implement the interface. We already access the mainframe running the exchange program through a web interface, in pseudo-real time. That interface will have to be adjusted, particularly with regard to making deposits. Whatever changes are being made to trade power were probably the result of the drop in trade power some people saw a while back. Those types of changes don't require a change to the interface, so why would RCI wait to make them?

Do you honstly believe publishing the trade power values is going to make people give up on timeshare? Those who might are already heading in that direction. If anything, I think more information will improve that situation.

Think of the general population of those who exchange their weeks. What percentage of them pays their maintenance fees early in order to deposit their week a full year out? Consider that blue week owner who pays in January and deposits their March week 3 months out, might discover that paying 6 months earlier will almost double the trade power. Consider he might now know what he would be able to get as an exchange by doing so, that he couldn't get before. Assuming her changes that maintenance fee to his credit card, and pays an extra 15% in finance charges (6 months, with a high rate card), he sees a dramatic improvement.

On the one hand you keep insisting that RCI has caused blue weeks to have little value, yet on the other hand you keep saying how those same blue weeks have better trade power than some red weeks. If that is the case, who should be upset? The blue week owners, or those red week owners?

 

[Tommart]

Impact of the New RCI Transparent System

The more I think about it, this new system should increase the demand for prime weeks and resorts.

Right now, my one bedroom Woodstone unit sees 104K of weeks. Unfortunately, none are in Maui where we want to go.

So, up until now, Maui was out of reach as an exchange.

So I believe that some people (like me) who currently do not have the option to exchange will combine weeks to get what we want. I have four annual weeks that I can play with. I would happily give up all four for two weeks in Maui.

This could increase the demand for prime weeks and potentially increase the surplus of non-prime weeks. As a result, the point spread between prime and non-prime may increase over time.

 

[cruisin]

The more I think about it, this new system should increase the demand for prime weeks and resorts.

Right now, my one bedroom Woodstone unit sees 104K of weeks. Unfortunately, none are in Maui where we want to go.

So, up until now, Maui was out of reach as an exchange.

So I believe that some people (like me) who currently do not have the option to exchange will combine weeks to get what we want. I have four annual weeks that I can play with. I would happily give up all four for two weeks in Maui.

This could increase the demand for prime weeks and potentially increase the surplus of non-prime weeks. As a result, the point spread between prime and non-prime may increase over time.

I agree, you would think this would happen, but who knows anymore, If people can pay the cash for the difference or combine to get a prime unit, the demand will be Nuclear hot for prime weeks.

 

[bnoble]

We've had the "prime week" discussion already---and it cuts both ways. Just as some people will "reach up" by combining, there may well be just as many who might prefer change back. For example, the couple who sees both the 1BR and 2BR now for their exchange might always take the 2BR "just in case someone comes". But, if that costs more "credits", they might prefer the 1BR instead. Likewise for a high-demand and moderate-demand resort in the same area; they may decide that saving the credits for something else is worth doing. And so on.

 

[Mel]

We've had the "prime week" discussion already---and it cuts both ways. Just as some people will "reach up" by combining, there may well be just as many who might prefer change back. For example, the couple who sees both the 1BR and 2BR now for their exchange might always take the 2BR "just in case someone comes". But, if that costs more "credits", they might prefer the 1BR instead. Likewise for a high-demand and moderate-demand resort in the same area; they may decide that saving the credits for something else is worth doing. And so on.

That's exactly what we want! Right now, in a straight one to one system, people will almost always take the best of what is available. If you're looking for that week in Maui, and your unit will pull any size unit up to a 3BR (don't know if there are any there, but assuming there are), I would expect most people will take the 3BR. It doesn't cost any more, and maybe friends might want to join them.

With this new system, maybe they will take the 1BR, because it's supposed to be a romantic trip for two, or a 2BR, figuring one other couple might join them. Why pay the extra points for that 3BR unless you know you're going to want it.

Then with the remaining points, which will in effect be a free extra exchange (paying the exchange fee of course), they might take a low demand week they wouldn't otherwise consider (or even something last minute), precisely because they were never willing to waste a good week.

For all those exchanges we're making right now that might be a trade down, we get the change. Or maybe as Tommart said, he wants 2 weeks in Maui, in exchange for his 4 other weeks. He gets those 2 weeks, and has enough change for a last minute trade somewhere else (or perhaps a last minute week to add on, if he can afford to change his flights).

 

[timeos2]

Key items that will build interest in the new way of doing things in weeks

So, up until now, Maui was out of reach as an exchange.

So I believe that some people (like me) who currently do not have the option to exchange will combine weeks to get what we want. I have four annual weeks that I can play with. I would happily give up all four for two weeks in Maui.
.

The ability to combine weeks to get the trade desired as well as the idea of "change back" for lesser exchanges are both big. I think owners (such as you) will find those great features and use them alot.

 

[MichaelColey]

We've had the "prime week" discussion already---and it cuts both ways. Just as some people will "reach up" by combining, there may well be just as many who might prefer change back. For example, the couple who sees both the 1BR and 2BR now for their exchange might always take the 2BR "just in case someone comes".

The more I think about it, the more I continue to lean back to the "prime week will be in higher demand" side. There are far more low value weeks than prime ones. If 5% of people trade up and 5% of people trade down, it'll have a far bigger impact on the top 10% of weeks than it does on bottom 50%.

Of course when/if prime weeks become harder to get (because they're now in the reach of far more people), some will say that RCI moved the goalposts and it's because of rentals.

 

["Roger"]

Its not like this is the first time anyone has ever tried to impliment a points based system. Fairfield (now Wyndham), Worldmark, Disney, Hyatt, Hilton have been using them for years.

From my own experience, my wife and I are usually taking pink weeks, one bedrooms, etc. in order to use the extra points for either an extra trip or a trade up. Most of the trade ups have been minimal up-trades in terms of points, but it is what has allowed us to have some very memorable trips to England and Wales.

The one big trade up was a truly prime unit in England. That trade up allowed us to take my wife's aunt, a nun who at the time was in her mid-seventies, on the trip of her lifetime. I serioiusly doubt that the same unit would have been available to us as a one for one trade in the Weeks system. How much was being able to do that (blow our wad) worth to us? Looking back (particularly since the aunt in question now is fairly deeply into Alzheimer's), it is much like the Master Card commercial - priceless.

Looking at it from the other side, whomever owned the particular English timeshare that we traded into on this one occassion had very few trade options if they wanted to trade for something of equal value. (There are very units that have that much worth.) I don't begrudge them at all for now being able to trade where they want without having to give up some of the value of what they own. When they trade down (which is almost any trade), they are given leftover points to use elsewhere.

People getting the fair worth of their timeshares, being offered incentives to take the marginal weeks in the Weeks system or one bedrooms instead of two, people knowing the actual trade value of what they are buying instead of having to rely on what the timeshare saleman tells them, people seeing the trade value before they submit their weeks to an exchange company, exchange companies not being able to systematically offer people less than the worth of their units and then skim off the top for rentals (one of the prime features of the Weeks system), ... nothing but "trinkets". Viva la trinkets.

Please note: I am in Points. I have nothing to gain from this changeover. In fact, it might undermine the value of my having paid to join the points program since its key features will now be available to everyone. Still, I am happy to see timesharing move in a positive direction. My only wish is that everyone will start militating that every exchange company do this. That will help create a better free market place where people can see what different companies have to offer and then take the best deal. That is how supply and demand should really work.

 

[Carolinian]

As I recall, what you actually have are two weeks that are lock-offs, so that would really be 2 for 2, and in terms of m/f's it would also be 2 for 2. Yes, people in that situation will very likely recombine their lockoffs. However, those with 4 seperate m/f's for 4 seperate weeks, well that is a different kettle of fish altogether.

If I wanted to go anywhere in Hawaii, I would be looking to trade through HTSE, not RCI, anyway.

The more I think about it, this new system should increase the demand for prime weeks and resorts.

Right now, my one bedroom Woodstone unit sees 104K of weeks. Unfortunately, none are in Maui where we want to go.

So, up until now, Maui was out of reach as an exchange.

So I believe that some people (like me) who currently do not have the option to exchange will combine weeks to get what we want. I have four annual weeks that I can play with. I would happily give up all four for two weeks in Maui.

This could increase the demand for prime weeks and potentially increase the surplus of non-prime weeks. As a result, the point spread between prime and non-prime may increase over time.

 

[Carolinian]

We've had the "prime week" discussion already---and it cuts both ways. Just as some people will "reach up" by combining, there may well be just as many who might prefer change back. For example, the couple who sees both the 1BR and 2BR now for their exchange might always take the 2BR "just in case someone comes". But, if that costs more "credits", they might prefer the 1BR instead. Likewise for a high-demand and moderate-demand resort in the same area; they may decide that saving the credits for something else is worth doing. And so on.

There will also be those who do not want to be tangled up with ''change back'' because they do not want to be bound to RCI for a future transaction. They may want to use their week the following year, rent it, or use a different exchange company. That is one of the reasons I have always prefered clean one for one trades. And most people who buy high season to trade is because that is the type of week they want to trade into.

I think we will likely see fewer people splitting their lock-offs, so that will add pressure on the better tier of weeks. Once the ability to buy extra points from RCI kicks in, then the trade up problem will become severe, and there will be a flight of prime weeks to II or SFX or others.

 

[Carolinian]

The more I think about it, the more I continue to lean back to the "prime week will be in higher demand" side. There are far more low value weeks than prime ones. If 5% of people trade up and 5% of people trade down, it'll have a far bigger impact on the top 10% of weeks than it does on bottom 50%.

Of course when/if prime weeks become harder to get (because they're now in the reach of far more people), some will say that RCI moved the goalposts and it's because of rentals.

. . . and some will drink the kool aid and say that RCI is incapable of any wrong.

 

[bnoble]

I continue to lean back to the "prime week will be in higher demand" side.

I think that is in part based on generalizing from your own current preferences.

 

[Tommart]

You are correct

As I recall, what you actually have are two weeks that are lock-offs, so that would really be 2 for 2, and in terms of m/f's it would also be 2 for 2. Yes, people in that situation will very likely recombine their lockoffs. However, those with 4 seperate m/f's for 4 seperate weeks, well that is a different kettle of fish altogether.

If I wanted to go anywhere in Hawaii, I would be looking to trade through HTSE, not RCI, anyway.

Your memory serves you well. I have two locked pair of units.

But I have never stayed in both sides so I view them as separate units. I have two one-bedrooms and two two-bedrooms at Woodstone.

When I paid my $540 MF for 2011 for the two one-bedrooms, I considered it two $270 MFs. I deposited them into RCI as separate units. Not sure if I would have received the same points depositing them as one two-bedroom.

I haven't paid the 2011 MF for the other locked unit(s). We plan to use one of these if the other side provides enough additional points to reach Maui.

Thanks for the advice on HTSE. I looked into it. I'm not ready to pay $49 for membership, and I have already deposited weeks into RCI.

We went to Hawaii in 2009--Oaho and Big Island. I originally planned to never go back, but my wife now wants to go to Maui.

I can go to Kauai without additional points help (51 available units) via each of the one-bedroom deposits. So, I only need help to get one week in Maui that will coordinate with one week in Kauai. Hopefully, one two-bedroom week 24 unit will do that.

But as you recommended in an earlier post, I have the option of renting at Maui. There are 53 available rental weeks for around $1300/week.

Tom

 

[Bourne]

Oh, but your number of members and deposits WILL change, and not for the positive. Crusin's post was right on the mark on that subject.

My comment was a quote from someone, and not my opinion.

 

[Carolinian]

I think one of the most aggraving aspects of the new exact number system is going to be the trades that are as a practical matter equal trades but have a slightly different exact number. If you are on the short end of that equation, you will either have to buy more points, when that aspect becomes operational (which may be as early as the rollout) but there will likely be a minimum, or you will have to commit to depositing another week to grab just a few more points. That other week then is committed to RCI and you cannot use it, rent it, or trade it with another exchange company. This nickle and diming is one of the things that I despise about an exact number system. Of course if you are on the positive end, you can just throw away the ''change back''. Some will feel obligated to use it, and that means making another week captive of RCI. Clean one for one trades give you a lot more flexibility in the sense of being able to use all your weeks the way you want to use them and not have extra weeks held captive by an exchange company.

 

[timeos2]

You can choose to lose it either way - one is no choice one is your choice

I think one of the most aggraving aspects of the new exact number system is going to be the trades that are as a practical matter equal trades but have a slightly different exact number. If you are on the short end of that equation, you will either have to buy more points, when that aspect becomes operational (which may be as early as the rollout) but there will likely be a minimum, or you will have to commit to depositing another week to grab just a few more points. That other week then is committed to RCI and you cannot use it, rent it, or trade it with another exchange company. This nickle and diming is one of the things that I despise about an exact number system. Of course if you are on the positive end, you can just throw away the ''change back''. Some will feel obligated to use it, and that means making another week captive of RCI. Clean one for one trades give you a lot more flexibility in the sense of being able to use all your weeks the way you want to use them and not have extra weeks held captive by an exchange company.

Now that makes no sense at all. What is the difference (in a negative way only) between "throwing away" the "change back" and losing it from a "clean" one week for one week, lower value trade? At least with "change back" you have a choice - with the so called "clean" trade its just gone - period.

Here is a theory that does not get off the ground from the start.

 

[MichaelColey]

I think one of the most aggraving aspects of the new exact number system is going to be the trades that are as a practical matter equal trades but have a slightly different exact number. If you are on the short end of that equation, you will either have to buy more points, when that aspect becomes operational (which may be as early as the rollout) but there will likely be a minimum, or you will have to commit to depositing another week to grab just a few more points. That other week then is committed to RCI and you cannot use it, rent it, or trade it with another exchange company. This nickle and diming is one of the things that I despise about an exact number system. Of course if you are on the positive end, you can just throw away the ''change back''. Some will feel obligated to use it, and that means making another week captive of RCI. Clean one for one trades give you a lot more flexibility in the sense of being able to use all your weeks the way you want to use them and not have extra weeks held captive by an exchange company.

While some of your points may actually have some merit, I don't see any merit in any of this.

First, is the trading value truly that granular? (Recall that the trading value won't change, but will just become visible.) I suspect that it is not that granular, based on how many weeks various current deposits see. I'm anxious to find out. In practice, though, it doesn't make much difference.

If you're slightly short of the week that you want to exchange for, I think the new system would be quite a bit more appealing. Currently, you wouldn't even see the week you want. Now, you would be able to see it (if you choose to) and you'll at least have options to exchange into it.

As for what to do with any "change", I see that as an improvement as well. Currently, you have no choice. If you trade down, you get nothing back. In the future, you'll get the change and can choose to use it or not. If you deposit 6-12 months in advance, you have 30-36 months before it expires. I think that's a lot of time to use our exchanges and change, and I'm sure opportunities will arise.

It sounds like you're arguing just to argue. These points make absolutely no sense.

 

[Carolinian]

As I pointed out if you will read my post, it is not so much a problem in being nickled and dimed by very close exact numbers if you are on the high side, because you can indeed throw away the paltry change back. It is the very close exact numbers where you are slightly on the down side. In that situation you have to tie up an entire additional week or buy whatever the minimum amount of additional points (once the point buying aspect is operational) to do the deal. These are the trades that are so close that they really are an even trade, thought the numbers may be very slightly different.

Now that makes no sense at all. What is the difference (in a negative way only) between "throwing away" the "change back" and losing it from a "clean" one week for one week, lower value trade? At least with "change back" you have a choice - with the so called "clean" trade its just gone - period.

Here is a theory that does not get off the ground from the start.

 

[Carolinian]

Currently, in the system from the way it has always been explained, you traded within a range. No exact number was ever given and the speculation was maybe 5%. That means that in the current system you do get very slight trades up, and since there is no way that you could ever get every number exactly correct to draw the line, that makes sense and is fair. So that means in these situations of numbers very close, you now DO see the week and do a clean one for one trade for it. You do not have to come up with extra points. Bootleg had some comments on this back when he was posting, and as an RCI employee I trust his knowledge about how the system worked more than I do your speculation.

And you are truly one of the kool aid drinkers who takes RCI at face value when they claim that values will not change. Come on, it seems every time that Tuggers have noticed major trading power changes, RCI lies and claims that there has been no change in trading power. From experience with RCI's clearly fictitious claims in the past that trading power has not changed, we should very well know what to expect this time around. If you had been around when they first started renting to the general public, I suspect you would have bought their lies that they were not doing it, hook line and sinker, too.

While some of your points may actually have some merit, I don't see any merit in any of this.

First, is the trading value truly that granular? (Recall that the trading value won't change, but will just become visible.) I suspect that it is not that granular, based on how many weeks various current deposits see. I'm anxious to find out. In practice, though, it doesn't make much difference.

If you're slightly short of the week that you want to exchange for, I think the new system would be quite a bit more appealing. Currently, you wouldn't even see the week you want. Now, you would be able to see it (if you choose to) and you'll at least have options to exchange into it.

As for what to do with any "change", I see that as an improvement as well. Currently, you have no choice. If you trade down, you get nothing back. In the future, you'll get the change and can choose to use it or not. If you deposit 6-12 months in advance, you have 30-36 months before it expires. I think that's a lot of time to use our exchanges and change, and I'm sure opportunities will arise.

It sounds like you're arguing just to argue. These points make absolutely no sense.

 

["Roger"]

Some issues that have come up lately. I don't know how the new system will work, but can say what happens within Points.

Lockoffs: If you deposit both sides of a lockoff, RCI treats it just as if you deposited the two different sides individually. That makes sense because what would stop someone from depositing first one side, then a day later the other. Because of that, lockoffs garner more points than similar sized non-lockoffs. For example, if, in a given area for a given season, a one bedroom is worth 40,000 and a two bedroom is worth 65,000 (one bedrooms are never just half of a two bedroom), then a unit at a resort that has a two bedroom lockoff garners 80,000.

Coming up just short: If I come up just short on the number of points I need, there are two things that I can do. First, I can borrow from next year's points. In essence, that means that over the years, I have to average what my allotment is. This is the better alternative. Secondly, I can "rent" (total misnomer - "buy" is the correct word) some extra points from RCI. The price is such that it is not excessive for a few points, but would really tally up if I tried to "rent" points for something entirely out of my range. (Personally, I think that if I get into a position that I need to rent points, it is my own fault.)

While some of us are accused of drinking kool aid by believing RCI (when all else fails, try slurring your opposition), it is hard to resist commenting that the same someone buys into the claim that behind the secret curtain RCI exercises a certain degree of forgiveness with regard to trading power. How do we know that? Wouldn't the prospect of skimming - something which the same person accuses RCI of - give them an incentive to do just the opposite - lie about your trading power in the opposite direction?

This is the accountability within the secret system: You can call up and ask a VC if your trading power is being calculated correctly. They take five and then tell you yes. (I am not saying that they do cheat. On the other hand, it bothers me that if errors are made - and RCI does make errors - you are given no way of showing RCI that they have occurred.)

 

[bnoble]

How do we know that?

Having paid quite a bit of attention to trading power differences both pre- and post-5/30/09, I get the sense that any "forgiveness" that might have been in the system was eliminated on that date, and is no longer in place.

I could be completely wrong about that, but that's what it looks like to me.

 

[Carolinian]

If the extra points RCI sells to members of Points Lite are as cheap as you suggest and the minimum is low, then this is where you will see the trading up occuring in the new system and will make the better inventory even harder to get for those trying to trade comparable weeks. That is fine, because that will run a lot of it to SFX where I am now trading one of my summer UK weeks.

It will be interesting to see if the rental of extra weeks is part of the original rollout or a later ''enhancement''. The source on that information said there was some question as to when it would be effective.

Roger, I have said before that because RCI has an incentive to cheat due to its rental program, the best option is probably the fully published system, even if is uses those aggravating exact numbers. A fully nonpublished system made a lot of sense before they got into this rental operation. The partially published system, however, remains the worst option of all.

As far as what RCI should be required to reveal, a lot of the facts and figures about its rental operations would be at the top of my list, and they should be required to be shown to prospective buyers. State laws have required exchange companies to provide timeshare buyers with a disclosure guide that lists a lot things as it is, but those laws were written before the rental programs took off. Legislators need to revisit those and make RCI publish a whole lot more information if it wants to rent out exchange deposits. That is the disclosure that the timeshare industry really needs.

It is not just errors that are the problem but deliberate distortions, when developers negotiate their numbers with RCI, which I know for a fact that BIS on the OBX did with RCI Points, as part of a group of GC resorts. There is no way to guard against that unless a lot of sunlight is allowed to shine into how the numbers are compiled.

Some issues that have come up lately. I don't know how the new system will work, but can say what happens within Points.

Lockoffs: If you deposit both sides of a lockoff, RCI treats it just as if you deposited the two different sides individually. That makes sense because what would stop someone from depositing first one side, then a day later the other. Because of that, lockoffs garner more points than similar sized non-lockoffs. For example, if, in a given area for a given season, a one bedroom is worth 40,000 and a two bedroom is worth 65,000 (one bedrooms are never just half of a two bedroom), then a unit at a resort that has a two bedroom lockoff garners 80,000.

Coming up just short: If I come up just short on the number of points I need, there are two things that I can do. First, I can borrow from next year's points. In essence, that means that over the years, I have to average what my allotment is. This is the better alternative. Secondly, I can "rent" (total misnomer - "buy" is the correct word) some extra points from RCI. The price is such that it is not excessive for a few points, but would really tally up if I tried to "rent" points for something entirely out of my range. (Personally, I think that if I get into a position that I need to rent points, it is my own fault.)

While some of us are accused of drinking kool aid by believing RCI (when all else fails, try slurring your opposition), it is hard to resist commenting that the same someone buys into the claim that behind the secret curtain RCI exercises a certain degree of forgiveness with regard to trading power. How do we know that? Wouldn't the prospect of skimming - something which the same person accuses RCI of - give them an incentive to do just the opposite - lie about your trading power in the opposite direction?

This is the accountability within the secret system: You can call up and ask a VC if your trading power is being calculated correctly. They take five and then tell you yes. (I am not saying that they do cheat. On the other hand, it bothers me that if errors are made - and RCI does make errors - you are given no way of showing RCI that they have occurred.)

 

[Bourne]

First, is the trading value truly that granular? (Recall that the trading value won't change, but will just become visible.)

FWIV, RCI went from four bands to six bands on 5/09. Resort's trading power is always fluid based on week/time/size etc. And no, there are no plans of modifying the bands anytime soon. The DVC change burned a big enough hole in the IT budget...

And now I should just shut up and disappear...:ignore:

 

["Roger"]

If the extra points RCI sells to members of Points Lite are as cheap as you suggest and the minimum is low, then this is where you will see the trading up occuring in the new system and will make the better inventory even harder to get for those trying to trade comparable weeks. ...

What I said is that if you only needed a few extra points, the price is not that great. (Think of it as a special fee that you have to pay in order to get the few extra points that you need.) If you are truly trying to make any kind of sizable trade up, the fee begins to add up and becomes quite substantial. Anyone who follows this route is truly throwing money away.

Let me try putting it this way. The price per point for "renting" points figured on a per point basis is quite high. If, however, you need only a few points, the total cost is not that great. (Multiply a big number times a small number and you get a fairly small number.) If you need lots of points, you are now multiplying a big number times a big number and get a big number. So, no, trading up to the really good inventory via renting points will not be popular (if done at all).