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.
Yes, he has 2 lockoffs, but the idea still works the same with 4 regular weeks. Maui weeks are available for rent for $1300 each, so 2 weeks would be a total of $2600. Reduce that by $400 to cover your exchange fees, and if you pay mantenance fees of $2200 or less ($550 per week) for your 4 weeks, you're ahead of the game by exchanging. For someone looking for the "once in a lifetime" exchange, trading those 4 weeks would be reasonable. No, it's not something people are going to do every year, but is definitely within the realm of possibilities.
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.
If you don't want the change, you can always ignore it. Just because you have the change doesn't mean you are require to use it, or to deposit another week.
. . . and some will drink the kool aid and say that RCI is incapable of any wrong.
Please Steve, name one person here who has claimed RCI can do no wrong. Just because we disagree with you on this issue doesn't mean we think they are perfect. If anything, we are the moderates. You think RCI is so evil that you won't consider the possibility that this change might be a good thing.
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.
If they feel onbligated to use the change, thet's their perogative. That would be a personal decision, not something required or all members.
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.
But do we know for a fact that those trades happen even now? We have been told there is tolerance built into the system, but do we know for a fact that people indeed trade up on a numerical basis? Since the numbers will be dynamic, we don't know if that same level of tolerance will be built in or not. I also wonder how much of that tolerance is really just the effect of late deposits. If the you deposit you 45,000 point week one year out, and want to exchange into a 50,000 point week, you still might be able to, if someone deposits it 10 months out (10% discount after 2 months would mean that week is now worth 45,000 points). RCI also could design the system to allow for the tolerance, by assigning a slightly higher number of points at deposit compared to the actual cost to exchange.
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.)
Exactly. At least with the new system, if you don't like the number, don't deposit. If they change your number, you have something concrete to use a proof. "You game me 20,000 points for my week, and now suddenly I only have 10,000." If it's a matter of suddenly not being qualified for certain exchanges, you can see if either the weeks are no longer in the spacebank, or of the cost went up.
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.
That's what it loos like to me too, but others will of course disagree.
