TPU "inflation"... is it RCI or resort thinking boosting required TPUs?

[Carol C]

First it was Manhattan Club's required TPUs that increased, then DVC. Interestingly these are both Gold Crown resorts, and both are still bulk-spacebanking We TUGgers were getting used to picking up exchanges for low cost during bulkspacebankings. I'm wondering if it is RCI behind this strategy...or is it the high-end resort complaining to RCI about low valuation by RCI vis a vis TPU exchange cost?

Btw...I've also noticed that two of my other fave resorts have pretty much doubled in TPU cost, and both are Gold Crown: Gamboa Rainforest Resort costs 40+ TPUs to get into a 2br (even in the 45 day advance window), and Marriott's Monarch has been boosted to cost 35 TPUs next December during low season...even though it cost 8 TPUs for same time period in 2011.

What gives?

 

[Carolinian]

Any time you have a published final number but a hidden process for setting that number it encouraging developers politicking the exchange company for higher numbers. It is what is wrong with Points Light. There are only two sceanarios for honest trading power numbers, publishing neither final number nor process, or publishing both. I suspect the first genie will not go back in the bottle at this point, so the only real option for customers is full transparency, where the formula is published and the underlying numbers are at least given to resorts. This full transparency already exists with RCI award status, and it should be applied to trading power numbers as well.

I have seen enough corruption in Points Light numbers, that I have no interest in using that system. Sure, one might buy a week at a resort that is overpointed today with the intent to trade into underpointed resorts, but the whole situation is likely to change quickly and then you are stuck. It is best just to avoid the system.

 

[Margariet]

I still think it is a matter of supply and demand. The market makes the price. I still see huge decline in TUP's as well. Last minutes are still very low in TPU's, even for Manhattan. Once it was even cheaper for me to cancel a week and book it again since the week suddenly needed such a small amount of TPU's. And I think that RCI is also still developing the whole system.

 

[Carolinian]

When you compare RCI Points Lite numbers in areas with much more demand than supply like southern England outside Cornwall or summer French Riviera or a host of others on one hand and those awash in excess inventory like Orlando, or the other, then one thing that is clearly thrown out the window by RCI on its numbers racket is supply and demand.

It is time for FULL transparency, not the pathetic illusion of transparency that exists currently.

 

[Margariet]

Supply and demand with RCI. RCI members want to go to NY, want to go to Disney and are willing to pay a higher amount of TPU's. When they don't want to pay these TPU's the amount will come down. The amount of TPU's is the amount we are still wlling to pay. That's the way of the market.

 

[bellesgirl]

Supply and demand with RCI. RCI members want to go to NY, want to go to Disney and are willing to pay a higher amount of TPU's. When they don't want to pay these TPU's the amount will come down. The amount of TPU's is the amount we are still wlling to pay. That's the way of the market.

We own in Orlando - Xmas and NY week. As much inventory as there is in Orlando, there is nothing available for those weeks for 2011. RCI's objective is to make an exchange, not to trade in TPUs. Apparently they can get rid of every one of those weeks, so they give a lot of TPUs to the owners.

I agree with Carolinian, I would pay big TPU to get London, but there is just not that much out there, period. I would guess RCI's main concern is volume.

 

[Carolinian]

Supply and demand with RCI. RCI members want to go to NY, want to go to Disney and are willing to pay a higher amount of TPU's. When they don't want to pay these TPU's the amount will come down. The amount of TPU's is the amount we are still wlling to pay. That's the way of the market.

In a true market, your statement would be accurate, but not when a ''market'' is distorted by other factors. In the case of RCI exchanges, it is distorted by RCI pandering to certain developers, by RCI's massive rental activities of spacebank deposits, and probably other factors.

As to Orlando, yes there is a big demand to go to Disney, but there is also an even MORE massive supply. Orlando is very much overbuilt, and it is the supply part of the equation that depresses the market there as opposed to demnd. It is very much like the Canary Islands, which I just returned from - great place to go, great place to trade into, lots of demand, but overbuilt and thus awash in excess supply.

NY should not exceed London in points. Both are high demand / low supply, but London is a far scarcer commodity in the timeshare world. NY sightings appear fairly regularly but London sightings almost never. Anything availible in London always gets snapped up by ongoing searches. Just one more excample of RCI's thumb on the scales in its corrupt ''market''.

 

[Ron98GT]

In a true market, your statement would be accurate, but not when a ''market'' is distorted by other factors. In the case of RCI exchanges, it is distorted by RCI pandering to certain developers, by RCI's massive rental activities of spacebank deposits, and probably other factors.

As to Orlando, yes there is a big demand to go to Disney, but there is also an even MORE massive supply. Orlando is very much overbuilt, and it is the supply part of the equation that depresses the market there as opposed to supply. It is very much like the Canary Islands, which I just returned from - great place to go, great place to trade into, lots of demand, but overbuilt and thus awash in excess supply.

NY should not exceed London in points. Both are high demand / low supply, but London is a far scarcer commodity in the timeshare world. NY sightings appear fairly regularly but London sightings almost never. Anything availible in London always gets snapped up by ongoing searches. Just one more excample of RCI's thumb on the scales in its corrupt ''market''.

Oops

 

[Mel]

NY should not exceed London in points. Both are high demand / low supply, but London is a far scarcer commodity in the timeshare world. NY sightings appear fairly regularly but London sightings almost never. Anything availible in London always gets snapped up by ongoing searches. Just one more excample of RCI's thumb on the scales in its corrupt ''market''.

I don't agree with you one this. While one might think that the resort that never shows up online should be valued higher, that is simply a function of the supply side of the equation, and the willingness of people to place ongoing searches to obtain a stay in London. Remember also that many who want to stay in London are willing to stay outside London as well, while those wanting to exchange into New York may or may not be willing to stay outside the city.

It's not just about setting a high bar, but obtaining balance. If I am setting the price on a commodity, I will set that price based on my total profit, not just on the profit of an individual item. If my base cost is $30, and I sell 100 items at $40, and only 40 at a selling price of $50, then the higher profit per item results in a lower overall profit.

Likewise, RCI has to consider what members are willing to pay, to exchange into London or New York. While there may be great demand for London, it is possible that not enough people would be willing to pay more for that exchange. They have to balance the equation such that inventory in equals inventory out. If we believe that it is in RCI's best interest to rent those weeks rather than make them available as exchanges, then why don't they set the cost for London higher? Perhaps because for whatever reason, it is in their best interest to set the price where it is, and provide those weeks as exchanges.

But then, the counter-argument holds. Is RCI setting the cost of NYC that high to discourage exchanges, so they can push that inventory into rentals? Perhaps, but again, why would there still be so much available as exchanges?

 

[Carolinian]

Oops

Thanks. I fixed it.

 

[rickandcindy23]

It's all about demand. DVC is in high demand, the weeks disappear very quickly, and DVC is going for very high TPU's as a result. There are lots of choices for Orlando, and I will choose other resorts from this point forward.

I just wish Hilton didn't have a 1-in-4 rule, which is a killer for us. I prefer Hilton and the Marriott resorts over anything DVC for our trips without grandkids. We will be happy staying at Vistana and several other resorts nearby, which I have seen as cheaply as 5 TPU's on sale during slow season. You cannot beat it.

 

[Carolinian]

Not surprising, Mel, that you defend RCI in anything it does.

New York sightings have been fairly common in the old system as well as the new. London sightings have been virtually non-existant in both. Indeed, Paris is more common than London, but less common than New York.

But there is more than just what we can glean from what appears online. There is also RCI policy in its VIP program. In VIP, resort managers and HOA members can obtain anything RCI has in inventory (also searches) and only has to give back a week of similar size and season. Trading power did not apply. (I don't know if the rules changes when Points Lite came in or not). There was only one place in the world where the VIP program could not trade into, and that was London. One of the RCI staff who worked VIP explained to me when I asked why that London had so much demand and so little inventory that if they allowed VIP exchanges into there, nobody else would ever get an exchange.

As to your remark about resorts outside London, those close enough to commute in have been also very difficult to exchange into, and harder to find than NYC. Two of those resorts have disappeared from the RCI directory in the last year completely. Even those resorts where you might do an hour and and half commute each way are very hard to trade into. Yet that whole region of England is grossly underpointed in Points Lite, although many of the same resorts fare okay in regular RCI Points.

I can see some of the prime weeks in NYC hitting 60 points lite, but when the deep offseason weeks are in that range, and substantially more than an owner of a similar sized week at Allen House would get during a desirable time, then it is beyond absurd.

Even with an exchange company that has an additional resort in London, SFX, it is harder to trade into London than into NYC. (SFX is the chief exchange company for Sloan Garden Court in central London, after that resort dumped RCI as its exchange company)

I don't agree with you one this. While one might think that the resort that never shows up online should be valued higher, that is simply a function of the supply side of the equation, and the willingness of people to place ongoing searches to obtain a stay in London. Remember also that many who want to stay in London are willing to stay outside London as well, while those wanting to exchange into New York may or may not be willing to stay outside the city.

It's not just about setting a high bar, but obtaining balance. If I am setting the price on a commodity, I will set that price based on my total profit, not just on the profit of an individual item. If my base cost is $30, and I sell 100 items at $40, and only 40 at a selling price of $50, then the higher profit per item results in a lower overall profit.

Likewise, RCI has to consider what members are willing to pay, to exchange into London or New York. While there may be great demand for London, it is possible that not enough people would be willing to pay more for that exchange. They have to balance the equation such that inventory in equals inventory out. If we believe that it is in RCI's best interest to rent those weeks rather than make them available as exchanges, then why don't they set the cost for London higher? Perhaps because for whatever reason, it is in their best interest to set the price where it is, and provide those weeks as exchanges.

But then, the counter-argument holds. Is RCI setting the cost of NYC that high to discourage exchanges, so they can push that inventory into rentals? Perhaps, but again, why would there still be so much available as exchanges?

 

[Carolinian]

Still, if you compare DVC to much rarer stuff, its points lite are often higher than the rarer weeks, and that should not be so if supply and demand is the basis of the numbers. DVC shows up quite often in sightings.

I would agree with you from what I read on these boards, that DVC has a significantly higher demand than anything else in Orlando.

Another thing with DVC is that the numbers went up very abruptly. If some event cooincided with an abrupt change like that, which it did not in that case, that could explain it within the bounds of supply and demand. Otherwise, it is symptomatic of an arbitrary change by RCI, or in laymen's terms, RCI putting its thumb on the scales. Such arbitrary changes in values cry out for a fully transparent system.

It's all about demand. DVC is in high demand, the weeks disappear very quickly, and DVC is going for very high TPU's as a result. There are lots of choices for Orlando, and I will choose other resorts from this point forward.

I just wish Hilton didn't have a 1-in-4 rule, which is a killer for us. I prefer Hilton and the Marriott resorts over anything DVC for our trips without grandkids. We will be happy staying at Vistana and several other resorts nearby, which I have seen as cheaply as 5 TPU's on sale during slow season. You cannot beat it.

 

[chriskre]

.

I just wish Hilton didn't have a 1-in-4 rule, which is a killer for us. I prefer Hilton and the Marriott resorts over anything DVC for our trips without grandkids. .

There always seems to be open season availability in HGVC thru the club someplace in Orlando.

Maybe you should add a biennial ownership to your portfolio so you can get those units too. That's one of the main reasons I bought into HGVC cause big units in RCI at the last minute in peak season are luck of the draw. My odds are better with HGVC. I know it's working well for me.

 

[Mel]

I wasn't defending RCI. I was stating that there may be something esle at work here. What are the demographics of members exchanging into NYC vs London? That's where the difference is.

A larger percentage of RCI's membership is based in the eastern United States than in England. A larger percentage of members are within driving distance of NYC than London, and the cost to get there is less - sure, Paris is within driving distance of London, if you take the Channel tunnel or a ferry, but at what cost?

That means there is likely more activity in NYC closer to the check-in dates, which translates to more demand. Obviously NYC has more supply than London, so VIP weeks are not allowed there. But that's still only the supply part of the equation. If you look at your example of SFX having more supply in London, why then do they charge the same upgrade fee for London as they do for NYC? Why do they list NYC as having peak demand all year, and London has both peak and high demand?

RCI sets their point levels they way they want - nobody is forced to use RCI. Perhaps rather than putting their thumb on the scale, some of those resorts that experienced "inflation" were being discounted before - like DVC. We all know everyone was suprised at how low the initial DVC values were. Perhaps RCI miscalculated, and decided they needed to boost them, particularly if they were giving DVC exchanges of significant value to get that inventory.

In no other business do I see companies explaining to the consumer how they set their prices. They are what they are, and we can choose to shop there or not. Yes, they have our deposits, but that's not far different from purchasing a gift certificate for later use. If their prices go up, I have to choose what I will purchase more wisely. The same applies to RCI and any other exchange company.

Not surprising, Mel, that you defend RCI in anything it does.

New York sightings have been fairly common in the old system as well as the new. London sightings have been virtually non-existant in both. Indeed, Paris is more common than London, but less common than New York.

But there is more than just what we can glean from what appears online. There is also RCI policy in its VIP program. In VIP, resort managers and HOA members can obtain anything RCI has in inventory (also searches) and only has to give back a week of similar size and season. Trading power did not apply. (I don't know if the rules changes when Points Lite came in or not). There was only one place in the world where the VIP program could not trade into, and that was London. One of the RCI staff who worked VIP explained to me when I asked why that London had so much demand and so little inventory that if they allowed VIP exchanges into there, nobody else would ever get an exchange.

As to your remark about resorts outside London, those close enough to commute in have been also very difficult to exchange into, and harder to find than NYC. Two of those resorts have disappeared from the RCI directory in the last year completely. Even those resorts where you might do an hour and and half commute each way are very hard to trade into. Yet that whole region of England is grossly underpointed in Points Lite, although many of the same resorts fare okay in regular RCI Points.

I can see some of the prime weeks in NYC hitting 60 points lite, but when the deep offseason weeks are in that range, and substantially more than an owner of a similar sized week at Allen House would get during a desirable time, then it is beyond absurd.

Even with an exchange company that has an additional resort in London, SFX, it is harder to trade into London than into NYC. (SFX is the chief exchange company for Sloan Garden Court in central London, after that resort dumped RCI as its exchange company)

 

[tombo]

I wasn't defending RCI.

In no other business do I see companies explaining to the consumer how they set their prices. They are what they are, and we can choose to shop there or not. Yes, they have our deposits, but that's not far different from purchasing a gift certificate for later use. If their prices go up, I have to choose what I will purchase more wisely. The same applies to RCI and any other exchange company.

If you say anything positive about RCI Carol gets mad and accuses you of defending RCI. He has not said anything positive about RCI in years and always shows London as the hardest trade in the world. I have never looked for a London week and probably never will. I DO have a Manahattan Club exchange reserved for my anniversary 2012 and yes I paid those high TPU's to get it, so the cost was worth it to me. I Checked travelocity, Kayak, Priceline, etc, etc, etc for rooms before exchanging and I am still doing so. I have vacation protection and if I find a better deal I can cancel and get all 60 of my TPU's and my exchange fees back. As of right now the exchange beats anything I have found on line making this a very good exchange for me, even at 60 TPU's.

Finally Mel great point about transparency. No company has to explain or justify the prices they charge for a product or service. Carolinian call Dell and ask them why they charge x $'s for the XYZ model laptop. Call Ford and ask why the trucks are so much higher thasn passenger cars. Call starbucks and ask why they charge so much for coffee. Please feel free to call the corporate offices of these and other companies asking for transparency and for them to justify why they charge what they do for their products. I look forward to hearing about your conversations and the tranparency you are enlightened with.

 

[6scoops]

I wish they would not raise tpu but seriously....

It does stink that they are raising the TPU on good resorts, I would rather they didn't catch on that those units were going as fast as they are being released.

So far, I don't know what is not to love about RCI, in my first year with them with my first deposit, I was able to book 2 weeks at DVC during the most prime time there is for Disney World, Christmas and New years, my kids are off of school. We will have 2 full weeks in the world. I got those two weeks for a fraction of what owning at DVC or Renting from a owner or reserving directly through Disney would cost! There is no cheaper way on this planet to get those 2 weeks unless you won a grand prize in a sweeps! I feel like I did by the way. On top of that, and I swear I'm not bragging, I also booked last minute over this past Columbus Day weekend The Manhattan Club for 18 TPU!! This is all with my first year deposit, and a little bonus deposit, I was not expecting. Next year now that they raised the TPU, I would not be able to do this but, I feel like I got away with murder my first year, so I was kinda expecting the jig to be up soon. Oh, and even at 60 tpu it is still cheaper that renting, going direct or owning!

Plus I rented my DVC points for double my maintenance fees, because I wont be needing to use them this year!

 

[bnoble]

If you say anything positive about RCI Carol gets mad and accuses you of defending RCI.

Indeed. He clearly subscribes to the philosophy that you either hate RCI with every fiber of your being, or you are evil incarnate. No middle ground. The ad hominem attack of "RCI Defender" is just a bonus that comes along with the game.

 

[chriskre]

Plus I rented my DVC points for double my maintenance fees, because I wont be needing to use them this year!

Woo Hoo!!!! You go Girl!!!

I too got a nice DVC exchange for only 19 TPU's in a 2 bedroom.
Vero here I come.
And this would have cost me 2 years MF's in DVC and I still couldn't get it. :annoyed:

 

[rickandcindy23]

RCI has always had lots of inventory on Kauai. Between Lawai Beach, Point at Poipu, the PAHIO's (now Wyndhams), and Pono Kai, the values in RCI are very low, making the exchanges so much cheaper than owning. I just got a Wyndham Shearwater for 21 points, February 23rd with an ongoing search.

Maui was always very high TPU's for Kahana Falls, Ka'anapali beach and Maui Lea at Maui Hill. That was most of the inventory through RCI. Now RCI has the Consolidated resorts in large numbers, all of which are on Maui. So now a summer week on Maui in a 2 bedroom is about the same as it is on Kauai.

So Maui and Kauai are now in large numbers in RCI, and RCI has devalued them. Supply and demand.

Very sad for anyone who owns on those islands and wants to deposit with RCI, because you can never get a DVC week with your 30 points lite (at $1,200 in MF's).

I just hope Consolidated didn't stick it to the owners by choosing an exclusive relationship with RCI. II needs to stay an option. If I cannot get DVC with my Maui deposit, at least I can get a Marriott and an XYZ second week with my Maui 2 bedrooms.

 

[Carolinian]

Mel, it should be a no-brainer that when inventory appears online at RCI, supply exceeds demand. When it is always snartched by an ongoing search and does not appear online, demand exceeds supply. It is really as simple as that. All sorts of fancy theories as to why there ought to be more or less demand for something don't matter. It is the cold hard facts that do.

As to London, I posted a thread sometime back about how even with the London Olympics has RCI given appropriate points lite to resorts in and around London.

The smart thing for a London, or indeed UK, resort to do is what Sloan Garden Court resort in London did, and that is kick RCI out the door and start using a different exchange company as your main exchange provider. In their case it was SFX. Or what the Seasons chain did and switch to II.

I wasn't defending RCI. I was stating that there may be something esle at work here. What are the demographics of members exchanging into NYC vs London? That's where the difference is.

A larger percentage of RCI's membership is based in the eastern United States than in England. A larger percentage of members are within driving distance of NYC than London, and the cost to get there is less - sure, Paris is within driving distance of London, if you take the Channel tunnel or a ferry, but at what cost?

That means there is likely more activity in NYC closer to the check-in dates, which translates to more demand. Obviously NYC has more supply than London, so VIP weeks are not allowed there. But that's still only the supply part of the equation. If you look at your example of SFX having more supply in London, why then do they charge the same upgrade fee for London as they do for NYC? Why do they list NYC as having peak demand all year, and London has both peak and high demand?

RCI sets their point levels they way they want - nobody is forced to use RCI. Perhaps rather than putting their thumb on the scale, some of those resorts that experienced "inflation" were being discounted before - like DVC. We all know everyone was suprised at how low the initial DVC values were. Perhaps RCI miscalculated, and decided they needed to boost them, particularly if they were giving DVC exchanges of significant value to get that inventory.

In no other business do I see companies explaining to the consumer how they set their prices. They are what they are, and we can choose to shop there or not. Yes, they have our deposits, but that's not far different from purchasing a gift certificate for later use. If their prices go up, I have to choose what I will purchase more wisely. The same applies to RCI and any other exchange company.

 

[Carolinian]

On your usual high horse, I see, Tomboy! Even posting links to threads I have started on RCI that were non-negative do not seem to register with you.

We have several categories here of the RCI defenders. Some are knee jerk cheerleaders who even defend the undefendable like RCI's rentals of spacebank deposits to the general public. Others perceive some personal benefit to themselves as to some RCI policy that might be negative to others. Points Lite is an example of that. A survey on another site showed that the numbers of those who perceived that they came out ahead was roughly equal to those who percieved they came out behind. That makes perfect sense in a real world, and it also makes perfect sense that those who think they came out ahead will praise the system. Only the arrogant, however, should beleive that those who came out behind should also praise the system. And then there are those of us who through involvement in the industry, in my case as an ex-HOA president, tend to look at a bigger picture than how it impacts us personally, although sometimes things we are aware of personally make good examples.

If you say anything positive about RCI Carol gets mad and accuses you of defending RCI. He has not said anything positive about RCI in years and always shows London as the hardest trade in the world. I have never looked for a London week and probably never will. I DO have a Manahattan Club exchange reserved for my anniversary 2012 and yes I paid those high TPU's to get it, so the cost was worth it to me. I Checked travelocity, Kayak, Priceline, etc, etc, etc for rooms before exchanging and I am still doing so. I have vacation protection and if I find a better deal I can cancel and get all 60 of my TPU's and my exchange fees back. As of right now the exchange beats anything I have found on line making this a very good exchange for me, even at 60 TPU's.

Finally Mel great point about transparency. No company has to explain or justify the prices they charge for a product or service. Carolinian call Dell and ask them why they charge x $'s for the XYZ model laptop. Call Ford and ask why the trucks are so much higher thasn passenger cars. Call starbucks and ask why they charge so much for coffee. Please feel free to call the corporate offices of these and other companies asking for transparency and for them to justify why they charge what they do for their products. I look forward to hearing about your conversations and the tranparency you are enlightened with.

 

[janej]

I just noticed something really strange too. I recently sold my timeshare at Waterside by Spinnaker in Hilton Head. We don't go every year and RCI only gave about 30 TPU for summer weeks for close to $700 MF.

Today, I noticed the TPU required to trade in jumped. Here are a few examples of the higher TPUs
2 Bedrooms 6 (6) Full Sat 30-Jun-2012 Sat 07-Jul-2012 41
3 Bedrooms 8 (8) Full Sat 08-Sep-2012 Sat 15-Sep-2012 42
2 Bedrooms 6 (6) Full Sat 26-May-2012 Sat 02-Jun-2012 41
3 Bedrooms 8 (8) Full Sat 21-Apr-2012 Sat 28-Apr-2012 41

I went and used the deposit calculator to see if there is any increase in TPU given to the owners. Here is what I found for the four weeks listed here
35, 22, 23, 26 TPU. The TPU values I used here are the full values, the actually TPU value the owners will receive is lower since all four weeks passed the 9 months checkin mark. I can understand RCI changes the TPU values based on supply and demand. They could ask for a higher value than they gave after receiving a deposit. But how do you explain continue to offer owners half of the value that they currently ask for?

By the way, this discrepancy is new to Waterside. I monitored the TPU values before I sold. Even though there were rarely any summer weeks available for exchange, the values were in line with what deposit calculator shows when a week popped up occasionally.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Jane, that is messed up for sure. I have always thought Hilton Head was too low in value, especially when compared to Myrtle Beach.

 

[tombo]

RCI has been adjusting TPU's based on demand very agressivelly recently. I put a Mardis Gras New Orleans studio on hold for 22 tpu's. I could not believe I had found a Mardis Gras week and was thrilled that it was only 22 TPU's. My wife could could not get off of work so I let it go. The next day she found out she could get off and I went back to find the same unit had risen to 29 tpu's in 24 hours. None of the January, February, or March non Mardis Gras weeks had increased, only the dates during Mardis Gras. It is like RCI said Oh I see why those are disappearing so fast, it is Mardis Geas. Duhh!

A couple of months ago before RCI adjusted the high demand weeks I booked a New Years Eve/Sugar Bowl week in a NOLA studiofor 13 TPU's. I know that was wayy too cheap for the demand for that week in NOLA, but I was happy to snag it.. Looking at the deposit calculator that week had a max tpu of 15 this year. Next year the deposit calculator shows that exact week is worth 20 TPU's for deposit.

Labor Day week 2011 I booked a Gold Crown Oceanfront 2 bed Wyndham for 18 TPU's. That was cheap and of course I loved it. A one bed room was available at the same resort the other day for August week for 27 TPU's.

They have raised both what they charge for prime high demand weeks, and they have raised how much they are giving you for depositing your prime weeks. If you haven't used the deposit calculator latelly to see what your prime weeks are worth, try it because it is probably worth more now than it used to be worth.

One of my summer units was valued on thr RCI calculator about 2 months ago for 19 TPU's. It is now worth 28 tpu's if I deposit it. Another of my weeks went from 22 TPU's about 2 months ago to 30 TPU's now. Another week went from 18 to 26. Another fixed week one bed unit Prime Week at a Hard to get resort was only 34 when I deposited it for 2012, it is now worth 40 tpu's if I deposit it for 2013. These were all prime summer weeks I always felt I was being shortchanged on. I feel much better depositing them now than I did a few months ago.