Speculating... I think I know where all the missing RCI inventory is.

[Carolinian]

Mini-systems have a mini-impact on the situation. The rentals make exchanging less viable, and that feeds on itself as people find alternatives to the ownership / exchange model or alternatives to RCI as an exchange company. The mini-system excuse does not explain the loss of exchange inventory in places where mini-systems are non-existant or virtually non-existant like the OBX or many countries of Europe. Obviously something else is the real answer.

On an exchange into a GC in the UK last year, I attended their Monday morning gathering of owners and exchangers, something I usually do not do, but with the weather that day, I decided to join in. It was interesting, as the discussion got around quickly to the exchange system, and I was not the one who brought it up! Most of those attending were or had been members of RCI, and all had noted extreme changes in exchange availibility in recent years. Some had dropped RCI already, and none gave prime weeks in British resorts to RCI anymore. Some still gave them weeks in the Canary Islands or an off season UK week. Several were using DAE and happy with it. Some had not heard of DAE but were busy writing down details as a British DAE member explained it. More were using their prime UK weeks themselves or using the resort's own rental program to rent the weeks out and then use the proceeds for trips to other places. Amazingly none had heard of the class action lawsuit in the US, something I filled them in on. Of the group attending, most were owners rather than people who had exchanged in.

I think that is a good snapshot of what RCI's policies have led to and will continue to lead to.

My take is that there isn't any one answer. We all want "something to blame", but there are several different factors all going on at the same time. Mini-systems are keeping prime inventory internally. Exchange companies are renting more weeks. Balkanization separates inventory pools. Owners are finding it more valuable to use Internet-based rental outlets to rent out their time and use the proceeds to rent what they wish. And so on.

The important thing to notice is that none of these things are going to go back to "the way things were." So, one must adapt.

 

[bnoble]

the best course of action may be to get a week in one of the minis, and see about converting my existing weeks for Points in their system. But, can I do that without purchasing from the developer?

In at least three cases (Wyndham, WorldMark, Bluegreen) you can buy resale points that "work". There are little perks that are not available to any/all resale buyers in Wyndham and Bluegreen. In Wyndham they almost certainly aren't worth it. In Bluegreen, they *might* be---depends on you.

I own two still-quite-good fixed weeks, and a Wyndham points deed. If I only had one, it would be the Wyndham.

 

["Roger"]

A few numbers to consider with regard to the UK and the non-impact of mini-systems ...

The most recent RCI Points book has 68 resorts listed on its map page. 29 of them (roughly a third of them) are listed as being in RCI Points. (I might add that given the way RCI Europe runs its points system, units at any English resort can be ceded to Points regardless of whether the resort is affiliated with Points or not.) Diamond (formerly Sunterra Europe) lists 9 resorts (some of them the ones listed by RCI) as affiliated with them, plus 5 marinas using narrowboats. Myseasons lists 7 resorts in England. Geoholidays lists 9 resorts where they have units.

There are other affiliations that I am only vaguely aware of and certainly some that I am totally unaware of. When I stayed at Thurnham Hall, they were promoting sales in which one joined a three timeshare alliance. Haven Court last year (oops, that would be Wales) announced that they had just begun an alliance with some larger entity. When I stayed at Burnside Park this fall, they announced that they had recently been bought by Hapimag. So it goes.

(Two quick comments. Note that these three are recent mini-system affiliations, not something long standing. Secondly, you might sense a pattern here. If anyone owns in England and would like to have their timeshare to become affiliated with a mini-system, perhaps the most effective way to accomplish this would be to set up a week for my wife and I to go there.)

Given that England during the summer is one of the most sought out exchanges by Americans, all of this certainly has had to have had an impact on availability for the non-affiliated owner. The Balkanization of timesharing ...

 

[skimble]

About 5 years ago, I recall reading a post on TUG about what RCI wanted from new Points resorts. Management (or the board) at this resort were so upset with the request they posted it in their newsletter in defiance of RCI.
RCI was asking the resort to allocate 75% of all weeks deposited with RCI Points to be Prime. The other 25% were off season (these were floating weeks ownerships.) This particular resort, and I wish I could remember the name of it, was upset. They didn't see the rationale. They acknowledged the potential for the availability of prime weeks to owners would diminish.
Assuming this is true, it points out where RCI takes more than a fair share and disregards ownership rules. It shows the potential for a disproportionate number of primes to be diverted from the owner. And, if this is their philosophy in action with contracted Points resorts, can't we assume they take the same sort of approach to their own inventory?
I know I'm pointing out the obvious. But seeing further evidence that shows RCI wants more than their fair share, to the ditriment of owners, is a strong testimony to their business philosophy.
I've often thought, if RCI can establish deals behind the scences like the 75/25 split, what other kinds of deals are they establishing that we don't even know about with the minis? Is there a reverse 75/25 split with the minis-- 75% primes stay within the mini system, and 25% goes to RCI. Or could it be even worse? 95/5

 

[Carolinian]

The resort at which I attended the introductory meeting is a sold out resort that is not part of any mini-system. Indeed, they themselves dodged the Sunterra bullet when an association board member, whom I met while I was there, inserted a poison pill in their governing instruments to prevent any such takeover at a time when Sunterra was trying to buy the remaining inventory of the original developer.

DRI trades through II, not RCI. The inventory that RCI gets at DRI resorts comes from Weeks-based owners at those resorts who did not convert to points.

Thurnham Leisure Industries went bankrupt several years ago and was bought by Sunterra. Of its three resorts, Sunterra forced owners out at Club Brittania and sold off the property, getting more for it than they paid for all of Thurnham Leisure Industries. While Thurnham Vacation Club still exists, DRI is currently in the process of forcing out its members at Thurnham Hall.

Hapimag does not trade with RCI. They only trade with DAE and DRI. And, again, Hapimag did not buy ''the resort''. They bought remaining developer inventory and management rights.

One European mini-system that is based in the British Isles is Seasons. But Seasons left RCI and joined II, specifically over its complaints that RCI's rentals were severely damaging their members exchange prospects. They also expressed their dissatisfaction with RCI Points. Seasons does have a trading partner relationship with DAE as well, and I have an upcoming trade to Ireland at Seasons at Knocktopher Abbey through DAE.

At the Timeshare Stripped Bare conference in the UK last year one major developer raised the point during one of the sessions that RCI rentals and the resulting decline in exchange availibility was significantly impacting his members satisfaction with timeshare and member retention for the resort. You might look up accounts of that conference over on TimeshareTalk.

I can also recall trading into a GC resort in southern England and walking into their onsite resale office just out of curiosity. The staff person in promoting the resales volunteered that if I wanted to trade I should join II or DAE, as a lot of their members were complaining about the big decline in availibility at RCI these days. He also said that some of their members had joined RCI Points, but he had heard nothing but bad experiences with that. The resort was dual affiliated, but I noted a couple of II posters on the walls but none for RCI.

The infamous Stuart ''The Bullfrog'' Lamont of South Africa's Club Leisure Group launched one or more of his sleazy points-based clubs in the UK, which have since failed.

A European resort being a member of RCI Points does not necessarily mean a lot. The manager of one such German resort I traded into told me that the number of their owners who used RCI Points were in single digits and several of those had expressed their extreme dissatisfaction with RCI Points to her recently.

A few numbers to consider with regard to the UK and the non-impact of mini-systems ...

The most recent RCI Points book has 68 resorts listed on its map page. 29 of them (roughly a third of them) are listed as being in RCI Points. (I might add that given the way RCI Europe runs its points system, units at any English resort can be ceded to Points regardless of whether the resort is affiliated with Points or not.) Diamond (formerly Sunterra Europe) lists 9 resorts (some of them the ones listed by RCI) as affiliated with them, plus 5 marinas using narrowboats. Myseasons lists 7 resorts in England. Geoholidays lists 9 resorts where they have units.

There are other affiliations that I am only vaguely aware of and certainly some that I am totally unaware of. When I stayed at Thurnham Hall, they were promoting sales in which one joined a three timeshare alliance. Haven Court last year (oops, that would be Wales) announced that they had just begun an alliance with some larger entity. When I stayed at Burnside Park this fall, they announced that they had recently been bought by Hapimag. So it goes.

(Two quick comments. Note that these three are recent mini-system affiliations, not something long standing. Secondly, you might sense a pattern here. If anyone owns in England and would like to have their timeshare to become affiliated with a mini-system, perhaps the most effective way to accomplish this would be to set up a week for my wife and I to go there.)

Given that England during the summer is one of the most sought out exchanges by Americans, all of this certainly has had to have had an impact on availability for the non-affiliated owner. The Balkanization of timesharing ...

 

[JEFF H]

The Image of RCI I have in my head is this huge greedy profit monster that will slice and dice members to extract every last drop of profit possible.

You all explained perfectly the many reasons why the pool of available weeks has been shrinking over the last few years.
RCI is still sitting in the middle of this shrinking pool sucking up as many of the weeks it possibly can to use for rentals to keep their profits on the rise.
RCI has found that by reducing the trade value of member deposits they can control the outflow of weeks from the exchange pool.
This allows RCI to keep sucking up the same volume of weeks or maybe even increasing it for use as rentals.

 

[timeos2]

Why does this nonsense continue?

About 5 years ago, I recall reading a post on TUG about what RCI wanted from new Points resorts. Management (or the board) at this resort were so upset with the request they posted it in their newsletter in defiance of RCI.
RCI was asking the resort to allocate 75% of all weeks deposited with RCI Points to be Prime. The other 25% were off season (these were floating weeks ownerships.) This particular resort, and I wish I could remember the name of it, was upset. They didn't see the rationale. They acknowledged the potential for the availability of prime weeks to owners would diminish.
Assuming this is true, it points out where RCI takes more than a fair share and disregards ownership rules. It shows the potential for a disproportionate number of primes to be diverted from the owner. And, if this is their philosophy in action with contracted Points resorts, can't we assume they take the same sort of approach to their own inventory?
I know I'm pointing out the obvious. But seeing further evidence that shows RCI wants more than their fair share, to the ditriment of owners, is a strong testimony to their business philosophy.
I've often thought, if RCI can establish deals behind the scences like the 75/25 split, what other kinds of deals are they establishing that we don't even know about with the minis? Is there a reverse 75/25 split with the minis-- 75% primes stay within the mini system, and 25% goes to RCI. Or could it be even worse? 95/5

This fallacy keeps getting repeated by people who for some reason feel threatened by points systems. I have sat on two different Boards who reviewed RCI Points affiliation - one decided to join and one didn't - so I hae first hand, direct knowledge of the process.

RCI asks NOTHING of the resort as far as specific weeks or use times. They can't as they, unlike the posters spreading FUD, understand that the owners control the deposits not the resort. Obviously they will target the owners of the best weeks but they want anyone who desires to convert to points (thats how they make money on the deal). And remember too that RCI is not selling these conversions - it is a company of some type set up to market the conversions to owners/new buyers. The only weeks the resort controls are any owned by the Association (which shouldn't be too many as the individual owners have to cover the fees for those weeks) and if a developer is still involved they would have the right to do as they wish with those times as they would also be paying the fees.

The only time that a large block of specific time could be requested by RCI Points would be if a new, largely unsold resort became affiliated. As the developer would have close to full control should they decide to commit a big chunk to Points even before they were sold to individuals they could. But that doesn't in any way impact the eventual owner as it was being sold as part of RCI Points - when it first gets deposited is meaningless.

I wonder why spreading this type of misinformation seems to be so important to the non-points folks. Perhaps we should start a "the sky is falling" thread stating that RCI Weeks wants resorts to deposit the best times to that system (as does II and others). Apparently that is a bad thing so why not play it up? There are plenty of things about Points that are significantly different than weeks based trades but demands for resorts to artificially deposit the best times in preference to owners and/or weeks if that is even a possibility simply isn't one of them.

 

["Roger"]

...
Hapimag does not trade with RCI. They only trade with DAE and DRI. And, again, Hapimag did not buy ''the resort''. They bought remaining developer inventory and management rights.....

I am not going through this post line by line, but the logic escapes me. The question is whether mini-systems are having an impact on RCI inventory. Let us just take the above quote (you can extend the response to other parts of the post).

I confess I do not know the exact legal nature of Hapimag's new relationship with Burnside. I do know that every unit at Burnside has promotional material for owners (old and new) to become Hapimag members. Once a member, you can trade within the Hapimag system. If ten percent of the owners do that (regardless of how they then obtain other Hapimag units via RCI, DAE, or directly through Hapimag - it makes no difference), there would be ten percent less deposits of Burnside units available to the general RCI membership. Fifty percent join, fifty percent less units available for RCI members.

This is not just an academic debate. People are puzzled with regard to how to get the best trades in the new environment. To suggest that mini-systems have no impact is not correct. It is less inventory for traditional trades, but increased opportunity to secure units within a mini-system.

Carolinian has constantly responded that mini-systems are too limited in choices. Perhaps once you join Hapimag, you can only trade to Hapimag and then his comment would be a consideration. But, with most mini-systems, you get first shot at inventory within the system, and, if you want something outside the system, then you trade through RCI or II and are no worse off with regard to your chances at getting what you want than if you just had an unaffiliated timeshare.

The sound advice for anyone currently buying is to consider if there is a mini-system that has a lot of attractive inventory for their own tastes. That will give them a leg up (a big one) in getting what they want within the system (with these units disappearing from the available list for non-members) and leave them at no disadvantage in trading outside of the system.

 

[skimble]

This fallacy keeps getting repeated by people who for some reason feel threatened by points systems. I have sat on two different Boards who reviewed RCI Points affiliation - one decided to join and one didn't - so I hae first hand, direct knowledge of the process.

RCI asks NOTHING of the resort as far as specific weeks or use times. They can't as they, unlike the posters spreading FUD, understand that the owners control the deposits not the resort. Obviously they will target the owners of the best weeks but they want anyone who desires to convert to points (thats how they make money on the deal). And remember too that RCI is not selling these conversions - it is a company of some type set up to market the conversions to owners/new buyers. The only weeks the resort controls are any owned by the Association (which shouldn't be too many as the individual owners have to cover the fees for those weeks) and if a developer is still involved they would have the right to do as they wish with those times as they would also be paying the fees.

The only time that a large block of specific time could be requested by RCI Points would be if a new, largely unsold resort became affiliated. As the developer would have close to full control should they decide to commit a big chunk to Points even before they were sold to individuals they could. But that doesn't in any way impact the eventual owner as it was being sold as part of RCI Points - when it first gets deposited is meaningless.

I wonder why spreading this type of misinformation seems to be so important to the non-points folks. Perhaps we should start a "the sky is falling" thread stating that RCI Weeks wants resorts to deposit the best times to that system (as does II and others). Apparently that is a bad thing so why not play it up? There are plenty of things about Points that are significantly different than weeks based trades but demands for resorts to artificially deposit the best times in preference to owners and/or weeks if that is even a possibility simply isn't one of them.

Owners do not control the distribution of floating weeks, the management company does. Some resort have alternative ways for doling them out as per CC&R's with call in dates and such. I own 14 different resort weeks, 9 of which are floating. Owners do not control floating week deposits when they are converted to Points.
Two of my RCI Points weeks are fixed week, and points are allocated according to this fixed week. The others are floating by season. Because it is a seasonal week, the management company (and RCI) have no accountability when it comes to allocating weeks. Owners may control the weeks that are deposited, but only when they are fixed. Management controls floating weeks deposited with RCI Points. Were the boards you sat on reviewing a Points affiliation for fixed or floating weeks?
Also, I do not recall any refutation on your part at the time of the TUG post citing this 75/25 split.

 

[Carolinian]

Even if there are some fewer people making deposits, there is an exact equivalent number of people making exchanges for those deposits, so for RCI that should balance itself out. It does NOT remotely explain the loss of inventory at sold out stand alone resorts. Indeed with some fewer people from mini-systems making exchanges to those resorts, if the exchange system was run fairly, then there should be an increase, not a decrease in availibility at such resorts. Your logic escapes me.

I am not going through this post line by line, but the logic escapes me. The question is whether mini-systems are having an impact on RCI inventory. Let us just take the above quote (you can extend the response to other parts of the post).

I confess I do not know the exact legal nature of Hapimag's new relationship with Burnside. I do know that every unit at Burnside has promotional material for owners (old and new) to become Hapimag members. Once a member, you can trade within the Hapimag system. If ten percent of the owners do that (regardless of how they then obtain other Hapimag units via RCI, DAE, or directly through Hapimag - it makes no difference), there would be ten percent less deposits of Burnside units available to the general RCI membership. Fifty percent join, fifty percent less units available for RCI members.

This is not just an academic debate. People are puzzled with regard to how to get the best trades in the new environment. To suggest that mini-systems have no impact is not correct. It is less inventory for traditional trades, but increased opportunity to secure units within a mini-system.

Carolinian has constantly responded that mini-systems are too limited in choices. Perhaps once you join Hapimag, you can only trade to Hapimag and then his comment would be a consideration. But, with most mini-systems, you get first shot at inventory within the system, and, if you want something outside the system, then you trade through RCI or II and are no worse off with regard to your chances at getting what you want than if you just had an unaffiliated timeshare.

The sound advice for anyone currently buying is to consider if there is a mini-system that has a lot of attractive inventory for their own tastes. That will give them a leg up (a big one) in getting what they want within the system (with these units disappearing from the available list for non-members) and leave them at no disadvantage in trading outside of the system.

 

[timeos2]

Still not factual

Owners do not control the distribution of floating weeks, the management company does. Some resort have alternative ways for doling them out as per CC&R's with call in dates and such. I own 14 different resort weeks, 9 of which are floating. Owners do not control floating week deposits when they are converted to Points.
Two of my RCI Points weeks are fixed week, and points are allocated according to this fixed week. The others are floating by season. Because it is a seasonal week, the management company (and RCI) have no accountability when it comes to allocating weeks. Owners may control the weeks that are deposited, but only when they are fixed. Management controls floating weeks deposited with RCI Points. Were the boards you sat on reviewing a Points affiliation for fixed or floating weeks?
Also, I do not recall any refutation on your part at the time of the TUG post citing this 75/25 split.

Owners do control the deposits through their requests. If they ask for the best times, the most likely request, then that is what they have to deposit until it is gone (to OWNERS as no one else can take it!).

No matter how you cut it a week can only be assigned once each use period and the best are going to go first. Yes a questionable management could assign themselves those best use times but only to the degree that they OWN that time. If if is owned by individual buyers the management can't take it unless they are willing to say its "gone" and are actually cheating owners out of their legitimate use. It may happen but it (hopefully) is not the norm and should be caught by owners after a short period of time.

As for the 75/25 split again the minis are going to take the best time they are entitled to - that only makes sense. And since they are there in line at the zero minute they can get what they want. But if they only have say 30% of the ownership then once they assign 30% of the total available use the rest go to the other eligible owners. Within a small window they may get a few use periods more or less but overall they have to basically remain within the percentages of what they own and thus control. It is crying wolf to say that those groups - or RCI, who do NOT have any magical connection to owner controlled resorts or management, can simply step in and take the best ties for themselves. It simply doesn't happen unless something both unethical and likely illegal is occurring. Not at all the norm.

 

[skimble]

Owners do control the deposits through their requests. If they ask for the best times, the most likely request, then that is what they have to deposit until it is gone (to OWNERS as no one else can take it!).

No matter how you cut it a week can only be assigned once each use period and the best are going to go first. Yes a questionable management could assign themselves those best use times but only to the degree that they OWN that time. If if is owned by individual buyers the management can't take it unless they are willing to say its "gone" and are actually cheating owners out of their legitimate use. It may happen but it (hopefully) is not the norm and should be caught by owners after a short period of time.

As for the 75/25 split again the minis are going to take the best time they are entitled to - that only makes sense. And since they are there in line at the zero minute they can get what they want. But if they only have say 30% of the ownership then once they assign 30% of the total available use the rest go to the other eligible owners. Within a small window they may get a few use periods more or less but overall they have to basically remain within the percentages of what they own and thus control. It is crying wolf to say that those groups - or RCI, who do NOT have any magical connection to owner controlled resorts or management, can simply step in and take the best ties for themselves. It simply doesn't happen unless something both unethical and likely illegal is occurring. Not at all the norm.

There's nothing illegal about politics. And, that's the game. Owners of floating weeks that are converted to Points do not have a say in the week they deposit. There is simply a conversion, not an allocation to RCI of a specific week. The owner gets points credit for a week; they don't know what week it is. That allocation is between RCI and management. The management company has all the flexibility in the world to pack extra pork into the RCI coffers, and nobody need know.
And, you use the term "the extent to which they OWN that time." Once a week is forfeited over to RCI, they are technically the owner of that week. That's why they can rent it or do whatever they want. By that same principle, once they get an allocation for that week, every year, it's theirs to book. RCI locks in a reservation with the resort 12 months out for that resort week unit. Points owners form an agreement with RCI every membership period (2 years out-- in order for the owner to utilize the subsequent year's points) stating their week will be given to RCI in exchange for points. RCI does not get on the phone 12 months out with the resort to secure a good week with the resort. They have an established agreement-- they go to the resort management, inform them of the number of weeks they have that have been converted to Points, and they request weeks. I'm inclined to believe the post from years back that said RCI wanted the 75/25. In an emerging system, like Points, it's in their best interest to offer the cream of the crop. There are multiple examples of how RCI has bilked the Weeks system to bolster their Points reputation. I believe it when I hear they've exercised a little political pull to get an extra push.

 

["Roger"]

Even if there are some fewer people making deposits, there is an exact equivalent number of people making exchanges for those deposits, so for RCI that should balance itself out... Indeed with some fewer people from mini-systems making exchanges to those resorts, if the exchange system was run fairly, then there should be an increase, not a decrease in availibility at such resorts....

The important message for this thread is that with mini-systems (and other factors) restricting access to desirable inventory (or increasing it for those within a system), people should be rethinking ownership and trading strategies. Contacting attorney generals is not going to return timesharing back to what it was in the 1980's (when, by the by, the reputation of timesharing was in the absolute gutter).

*****************

Now the boring stuff. (Most people can quit reading right now.)

Start with the old addage that 80% of the people want 20% of what is available. Using an intuitive model, what Carolinian is saying is that if Hapimag, Hilton, and Disney were to pull half of that 20% out of existence and put it into their own mini-systems, that should increase the opportunities for the rest of us to get good inventory (the remaining 10% with 70% of us now pursuing it). Not so.

Looking at this more technically, he is correct that IF the system had been run totally fairly - that is, the only people who were previously able to successfully trade for the desired 20% were people who owned units that were part of the 20% - then having half of the desired units pulled out of the inventory would not have any effect on the rest of the system. The only people who could get the remaining desired inventory would be those who get it before, those who owned units within the top 20%. But looking at past trade tests, hearing how people with good but not outstanding units used to be able to see Disney, the bragging contests that used to occur on TUG with regard to top trades, etc., it is clear that access to the top 20% had not been restricted to just that group. Given that, if mini-systems start pulling out top inventory (more accurately, if mini-systems give first access to their own members), this will affect what is available to large chunks of exchangers.

[Very technically, something akin to a statistical phenomena call regression into mediocrity used to be in effect. The better your timeshare, the more likely it is that you would trade down. Intuitively, if you own a timeshare in the top half of a percent, almost any trade you can make is a downward trade. Meanwhile, those at lower levels have many choices of units that are better than their own. They have more opportunities to trade up. Point systems are meant to address this phenomena in that when people do trade down, they still have more points to spend.]

Now suppose the mini-systems, etc. start decreasing the availability of top units or top locations. (Yes, mini-systems alone do not account for the decreased sightings of top locations or units. There are other factors at work. Online trading, for example, has also had a great effect in that people, instead of asking to trade to a specific location and taking what they could get, started looking to see what was the most desirable trade that they could make looking all over the map - "Oh, look, there is a great unit available in Aruba, lets go there. I hadn't even thought of asking for that, but it is the best trade (aka the biggest trade up) available." "Hey, we can get a three bedroom unit, and not just take a one bedroom unit like our own")

As the availability of top units dwindles and owners of the very top end units become more disgruntled, what could RCI do to help keep those remaining people with top units happy ("...make the exchange system run more fairly"). You are not going to like the answer ... Restrict the opportunities for those with very good units, but not top units to trade up. (The great devaluation?)

 

[timeos2]

Control never passes to RCI

And, you use the term "the extent to which they OWN that time." Once a week is forfeited over to RCI, they are technically the owner of that week. That's why they can rent it or do whatever they want. By that same principle, once they get an allocation for that week, every year, it's theirs to book. RCI locks in a reservation with the resort 12 months out for that resort week unit. Points owners form an agreement with RCI every membership period (2 years out-- in order for the owner to utilize the subsequent year's points) stating their week will be given to RCI in exchange for points. RCI does not get on the phone 12 months out with the resort to secure a good week with the resort. They have an established agreement-- they go to the resort management, inform them of the number of weeks they have that have been converted to Points, and they request weeks. I'm inclined to believe the post from years back that said RCI wanted the 75/25. In an emerging system, like Points, it's in their best interest to offer the cream of the crop. There are multiple examples of how RCI has bilked the Weeks system to bolster their Points reputation. I believe it when I hear they've exercised a little political pull to get an extra push.

The rules of the resort use assignment still apply even if the owner has made an election to deposit with RCI Points for 1-3 years. RCI cannot and does not go to the resort and request specific deposits - it is the resort/owner handling that process. RCI NEVER effectively owns the week(s) but has the owners agreement to turn over use rights for XX years and even that can be undone for any given year within a proper request time frame. It still belongs to the owner. The mini's may have far more direct control than RCI could ever have as RCI is strictly an option vs some mini's which actually hold the deeds and merely sell RTU to buyers.

 

[BocaBum99]

I would say that purchasing any timeshare with the expectation of getting great exchanges via a 3rd party exchange company is a recipe for disappointment.

The dominant trend in timesharing is to align with multisite resort groups typically based on points.

If you want to purchase a standalone resort, make sure you like going there because the exchange options may be quite limited.

 

[Carolinian]

I would say that purchasing any timeshare with the expectation of getting great exchanges via a 3rd party exchange company is a recipe for disappointment.

The dominant trend in timesharing is to align with multisite resort groups typically based on points.

If you want to purchase a standalone resort, make sure you like going there because the exchange options may be quite limited.

There was an industry statistic I posted a year or so ago that refutes that assertion. As a percentage of timeshare under construction or with consttuction permits approved, the significant majority of it was from independent developers, NOT the chains you mention.

These ''mini-systems'' are FAR too ''mini'' to be that useful. The future is with the independent exchange companies.

 

[Mel]

The rules of the resort use assignment still apply even if the owner has made an election to deposit with RCI Points for 1-3 years. RCI cannot and does not go to the resort and request specific deposits - it is the resort/owner handling that process. RCI NEVER effectively owns the week(s) but has the owners agreement to turn over use rights for XX years and even that can be undone for any given year within a proper request time frame. It still belongs to the owner. The mini's may have far more direct control than RCI could ever have as RCI is strictly an option vs some mini's which actually hold the deeds and merely sell RTU to buyers.

Moreover, the principle that allows RCI to assign an average point value to a floating week means that the deposits made to RCI must have that same everage point value. If a resort has 52 owners who have joined Points, and those owners each own a weeks that floats all 52 weeks, then RCI should be given a distribution of weeks reflecting the various trading powers - approaching a situation where they are assigned 1 unit for each week of the year. In a points mini-system, the members are depositing points, so a specific number of points have to be given to RCI, and there's no requirement for them to be from a set number of weeks, so several low-valued weeks could be given to RCI in place of one good week. The who reason those low-value weeks are worth less weeks is because owners don't want to use them, so why not place them in RCI?

With floating week resorts, while RCI may value all weeks identically, we all know the reality is they vary, so why no deposit the least desired weeks that qualify for those points levels? Of course I would hope that RCI would devalue the floating weeks at any resort that does that, but who knows?

 

[timeos2]

There was an industry statistic I posted a year or so ago that refutes that assertion. As a percentage of timeshare under construction or with consttuction permits approved, the significant majority of it was from independent developers, NOT the chains you mention.

These ''mini-systems'' are FAR too ''mini'' to be that useful. The future is with the independent exchange companies.

The industry has virtually shut down as far as any new development goes. What exists and where it is affiliated will be the battleground for the next decade it appears. The minis had been THE biggest source of new inventory for nearly a decade. Note - not a source of new locations but just volume mostly at existing locales. There were a significant number of new locations, usually small to tiny resorts, but those where not the mass numbers of units we saw come on line from 1999-2009. The majority of that slug of inventory came in through the mini systems. Some are not very "mini" at all.

The real dead end of any type of trade/multi resort system is too few resorts. A small mini system (20 or less) is practically worthless. Same with the independent exchange companies. Most have so little inventory as to be worse than nothing. It (was) RCI's greatest time, and close to a true golden age for timeshare, when virtually every resort that existed traded with one exchange RCI. Even move about 1/3 to 1/2 as many, with some overlap, to II helped spoil things. Once you start carving out tiny groups of 10 weeks here, 5 there from 25 resorts it is virtually worthless. Which came first the inventory or the trade value? One needs the other and reaching critical mass is tough. Few have done it. Some mini systems have more inventory than the small 3rd party exchange companies.

Basically what Boca said - buying to trade in a weeks based exchange - is practically a guarantee of dissatisfaction long term with your purchase. It is slightly better with a moni system IF the place they have for internal use are the very ones you desire to use. The best is to buy exactly what you use and don't plan on trade to maximize ownership satisfaction. That was always the real design of timeshare as a replacement for a whole ownership type use without the extra 51 weeks a year to worry about or pay for. Trading was / is a bonus and isn't in anyway a guaranteed process.

 

[Carolinian]

The statistic I mentioned, which was from a trade publication in the hospitality industry and cited at Street Talk with a link, was based on individual units, not on number of resorts, and the significant majority of them were from independent developers, not timeshare chains.

The industry has virtually shut down as far as any new development goes. What exists and where it is affiliated will be the battleground for the next decade it appears. The minis had been THE biggest source of new inventory for nearly a decade. Note - not a source of new locations but just volume mostly at existing locales. There were a significant number of new locations, usually small to tiny resorts, but those where not the mass numbers of units we saw come on line from 1999-2009. The majority of that slug of inventory came in through the mini systems. Some are not very "mini" at all.

The real dead end of any type of trade/multi resort system is too few resorts. A small mini system (20 or less) is practically worthless. Same with the independent exchange companies. Most have so little inventory as to be worse than nothing. It (was) RCI's greatest time, and close to a true golden age for timeshare, when virtually every resort that existed traded with one exchange RCI. Even move about 1/3 to 1/2 as many, with some overlap, to II helped spoil things. Once you start carving out tiny groups of 10 weeks here, 5 there from 25 resorts it is virtually worthless. Which came first the inventory or the trade value? One needs the other and reaching critical mass is tough. Few have done it. Some mini systems have more inventory than the small 3rd party exchange companies.

Basically what Boca said - buying to trade in a weeks based exchange - is practically a guarantee of dissatisfaction long term with your purchase. It is slightly better with a moni system IF the place they have for internal use are the very ones you desire to use. The best is to buy exactly what you use and don't plan on trade to maximize ownership satisfaction. That was always the real design of timeshare as a replacement for a whole ownership type use without the extra 51 weeks a year to worry about or pay for. Trading was / is a bonus and isn't in anyway a guaranteed process.