UPDATE: RCI CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT - must read for all RCI members [Includes Results]

[Carolinian]

Not only that, but people were very happy to patronize it.

Of course there are limits to what a company can do---a company must follow the law, and act in a straightfoward manner. You can claim that renting deposits is not straightforward, except that anyone who actually bothers to read the agreement is fully aware of it.

If you are so sure that it is deceptive, perhaps you should sue under North Carolina law. But, continuing to whinge about it here---while the next minute praising them for the good rental deals you see there---is doing no one any good at all.

If we ever get an NC Attorney General of my party whom I can approach, I will see that something gets cranked up on this matter in NC. Unfortunately a politically active person in one political party, such as myself, is not going to have any clout on something like this when the AG is from the other party.

The AG has lots of advantages, too. He doesn't have to go through a lot of antics to certify a class. He automatically has standing to represent consumers, which saves a lot of time and effort. He also has a lot of pre-litigation tools that private attorneys do not have, like pre-litigation subpoenas to investigate the matter. He is also going to be able to bring the action on his own turf instead of having to litigate in New Jersey.

I have not ''praised'' RCI for their rentals. I have simply pointed out the obvious, that they are now a rental company instead of an exchange company. If someone is fool enough to deposit a timeshare week with them, that is the depositor's problem. The smart member does something else with his timeshare week and uses RCI for the cheap rentals while they exist. Of course, the best outcome is for their chain to be jerked real hard in court and they be compelled to operate as an ethical exchange company once again, but until that happens, we simply have to treat them as what they are, a rental company.

A bank has a fiduciary responsibility for its depositors money, and there has been some discussion at The Timeshare Beat that this concept should apply to RCI as well, that it has a fiduciary or quasi-fiduciary responsibility to its depositors in handling their exchange deposits.

Fine print is the essence of a contract of adhesion, which when it gets to court suddenly becomes no contract at all. Yes, there are some other elements, but all of them are in place with RCI's T&C, which are a contract of adhesion.

You may not understand it, but it will do timesharing a whole lot of good to be able to stop RCI's dishonest rental tactics dead in their tracks. Do you think their regular and repeated denials to members that they are renting exchange deposits is an honest business practice??????

 

[Susan2]

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even this ''excess'' issue is a slippery slope. They can manipulate the trading power to make anything they want ''excess''.

That brings up an interesting issue. RCI is, on at least some demonstrable occasions, assigns trade power to weeks that is insufficient to pull up that same week!

I have seen this at two of my resorts. Using the "points" values of the weeks, it is possible to see "different shades of red." So, if a particular week, say week 52, is assigned the highest point value, then surely it should be able to pull up weeks of the same or smaller size at the same resort which have lower point values assigned.

However, this is not always the case, yet the weeks are available via the Points program. (I called RCI on this, and got no satisfaction, so I referred it to the people at my resort who are in charge of dealing with RCI currently.)

I also noted that at another resort, my white week (deposited 13 months in advance, which should have given it "full trade power") could not pull itself up. I could pull it up with my red week AT THE SAME RESORT, so I knew the week was avaliable. I called RCI to ask about this, and was told that "the system is set up to block exchanges at the home resort" and that "RCI Guides can see the weeks, but the consumer can't." I talked to both a vacation guide and a supervisor about this and got the same answer. So then I asked why, then, could I pull it up home resort weeks with a RED week at that same resort, which weeks included that white week. I was told that since I had an ongoing search against the red week, that week didn't appear on their (RCI's) screen, so they didn't realize I had it on deposit.

So, in other words, they were making up a story and didn't realize that they would get caught!!!

RCI must be an awful place to work sometimes. They treat their own employees like mushrooms!

What can be done is to shed some light on the process. DISCLOSE THE TRADE POWER for both deposits and inventory, the way Red Week does. Then people would know why they can or can't get a week. That wouold force honesty.

Also, it would seriously clean up many of the lies that give the timeshare industry a bad name. That is, resorts still lead potential buyers ("marks"?) to believe that red is red is red, so the week 40 in Orlando is as good as a spring break week. But I suspect that at least some of the salespeople are also given false or misleading information. If RCI had to disclose the actual trade power of weeks to both owners AND SELLERS, and the buyers could get that information, then people couldn't be rooked into paying full price for a fall week in Orlando!

Lights, please!

 

[Carolinian]

Edited to add:

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, such clauses are generally found to be unenforceable because they violate the law in some way---for example, even if you sign a timeshare sales contract that waives your recission period in a state in which mandates one, you still have that recission period.

If you can find me any state or federal statute that says units deposited for exchange can only be obtained in exchange, I'll line right up behind you to say that the current Subscriber Agreement does not actually allow RCI to rent deposits.

''An Unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce is unlawful''

What part of ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'' do you not understand?

 

[Kaye]

I'm a lifetime member here, but haven't been active for a long time. I read Endless Vacations - almost page by page. I'm on the RCI webpage a considerable amount. I knew nothing of this.

Thanks for bringing me back to the two most reliable sources of information - TUG and tstoday. My subscription will be in the mail this week.

 

["Roger"]

...What can be done is to shed some light on the process. DISCLOSE THE TRADE POWER for both deposits and inventory, the way Red Week does. Then people would know why they can or can't get a week. That wouold force honesty...

Just so that you know, I have had a long standing argument with Carolinian on just this issue. He claims that keeping trading power secret helps make the system more honest, more fair. His contention is that by revealing trading power, developers would manipulate the values in their favor and owners would be ripped off.

Hurray for some common sense on your and Jennie's part. Nothing, nothing would help make the whole timeshare business fairer than giving the consummer more information on the actual worth of his unit. Salespeople wouldn't be able to misrepresent the value of their units; people could make educated decisions about what to buy, what to trade for, etc. The whole theme of TUG is "Knowledge is Power" but Carolinian has been arguing that ignorance helps us.

On a second note, there is an easy explanation as to how you can't pull your own unit. Trading power is set at the time you deposit. If you deposit right after a bulk spacebank, after many other people have deposited because maintenence fees have been set, etc. and demand at the point is low, you are given low trading power due to the supply and demand. When demand heats up, the trading power required for your unit rises, but your trading power is fixed at a lower level.

This hits squarely upon another long standing dispute that I have had with Carolinian. He argues that the Weeks system is better because it uses the dynamic powers of supply and demand (or some similar phrase). Points are bad because they use a Communistic system of fixed prices.

I am glad that people like you and Jennie are arguing for the improvements in RCI.

 

[BocaBum99]

''An Unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce is unlawful''

What part of ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'' do you not understand?

The part where any judge or jury agreed with you that RCI did anything wrong. Please show me the document or link that explains the verdict.

 

[Susan2]

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The part where any judge or jury agreed with you that RCI did anything wrong. Please show me the document or link that explains the verdict.

Okay, how about the RCI Vacation Guides (and other RCI representatives) claiming FOR YEARS, INCLUDING TO THIS DAY, that RCI NEVER takes weeks deposited for exchange, and rents or disposes of them to other inventories not available to RCI members.

If that isn't deceptive, then perhaps I should go back to law school??? After all, I thought that putting something in the fine print and then lying about it was misrepresentation or deception at the very least!

And here's another thing: If RCI is really convinced that this is a fair business practice, then why aren't they freely admitting that they do it, even to their own employees. (Or do they merely happen to hire only people who lie for the fun of it?)

 

[timeos2]

Maybe if we had a contract of super glue it would stick?

If I were a more, uh -- um, er, ah . . . discriminating vacationer, perhaps snagging great last-minute Instant Exchange reservations would leave me so dissatisfied that I would try to get some state attorney general to take RCI to court.

Wouldn't that be something ?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

If you were really a discriminating timeshare consumer you would have to immediately stop enjoying beautiful Orlando timeshares and instead become a big holder of small, non-ranked,off season, ocean side weeks. Why? Because they need the fees and, after all, those are at least as good. Everyone knows that - right? They are ON THE BEACH after all - what does it matter that its in freezing weather that penguins avoid? Then you too could complain that RCI wasn't properly inflating the value of your worthless time by giving you desirable time in much nicer (and warmer year round) resorts!.

Really, it's a lifestyle and one can really get into it if you try. In that world there is no off season for your dog weeks, only those others own (and that strangely enough DO have year round demand!) And it is up to the evil exchange companies to ensure you that value no matter what it costs them or the owners of the far better and in demand resort time. And should you suggest that the very limited, highly seasonal weeks at those surf side locations that really ARE in demand should pay more while the dredge weeks pay less you will be roundly beaten down. It is the right of those few prime week owners to be subsidized by the other 40+ weeks per year, and of course the exchange giants, because - well, just because. That's the way it is. You'll have a whole new, if slightly off kilter, world view of timesharing once you buy in. And it will fan your love of the ever-so-effective class action as well. Another worthwhile endeavor to fix all that is wrong in timeshare.

This whole thread is a revisit to the same arguments when the meaningless suit was filed 5 years ago and the end result, despite the herculean and laudable efforts of Susan and Shep from TST, who really have gone to bat like few others for the owners, will in all likelihood still be a cave in to RCI. And the true answer still is to not use them or II if they are doing the wrong thing. No amount of notice to the owners about the pending settlement is going to get thousands and certainly not the tens of thousands needed up in arms over it as they often can't even figure out how to deposit or exchange their week(s). It is a non-issue to most contract adhesion or not.

 

[bnoble]

What part of ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'' do you not understand?

I believe I understand both of those terms. It's certainly not deceptive, because the practice is spelled out very clearly in the Subscriber Agreement. Only a fool or an idiot would think that somehow RCI could not rent out deposits after reading that language. So, let's dispense with "deceptive".

As to "fair"---if RCI does as they say they do, substituting weeks of "comparable" value that they obtain in other ways---then it seems pretty darn fair to me. Even if they simply rely on bulk spacebanks of developer inventory of the proper size and season to replace deposits that are rented out, they're probably on pretty solid footing.

This, as it happens, is one of my pet peeves. Something that you do not like is not necessarily "unfair". You just don't like it. Unpleasant is not the same as unfair.

Finally, I see that I've upset you, so I'm afraid that this will be the end of my contribution to the conversation. If you wish to have the last word, you may be my guest.

 

[Carolinian]

This is a seperate issue, but as usual you misstate my position.

Developers DO manipulate the values of a published system like RCI Points. A good example was BIS on the OBX, which at one point said if RCI was going to points, they were going to II, then groused about how many points RCI would give them, then told people (and I heard it directly from the lips of one of their execs) that they had joined a group of gold crown resorts to demand more points from RCI if they were to join the system, then got what they wanted from RCI and joined. Points are also frozen and cannot adjust easily to changes in supply and demand if they are based on paper and ink publication. They cannot even adjust to expected variances like whether Thanksgiving is week 46 or 47. Points always gives the high value to week 47, even years that it is not Thanksgiving, and as the week after turkey day is a real dud of a week.

To maintain the integrity of a true market based system like Weeks, however, it is absolutely necessary that the entity running the system not have a conflict of interest that gives them a motive to put their thumb on the scales. I have ALWAYS made that point, and your ALWAYS seem to leave it out. Such conflicts of interest destroy the integrity of the system. Rentals are a massive conflict of interest, and a market based system cannot be run honestly with such a conflict of interest.

The whole corrupt points system is full of rigged values. My favorite is how one can trade a blue week in overbuilt New Bern for a prime summer week on the Outer Banks WITHIN RCI Points and even have ''change'' left over. It is even worse when using the rigged generic points grids for crossover exchanges.

But Roger, I really see what you are trying to do. You are running interference for your buds at RCI by trying to change the subject of this thread to points vs. weeks. Lets get back to topic on the corrupt rentals from RCI. If you want to talk points vs weeks, that belongs in another thread. Do not hijack this one.

Just so that you know, I have had a long standing argument with Carolinian on just this issue. He claims that keeping trading power secret helps make the system more honest, more fair. His contention is that by revealing trading power, developers would manipulate the values in their favor and owners would be ripped off.

Hurray for some common sense on your and Jennie's part. Nothing, nothing would help make the whole timeshare business fairer than giving the consummer more information on the actual worth of his unit. Salespeople wouldn't be able to misrepresent the value of their units; people could make educated decisions about what to buy, what to trade for, etc. The whole theme of TUG is "Knowledge is Power" but Carolinian has been arguing that ignorance helps us.

On a second note, there is an easy explanation as to how you can't pull your own unit. Trading power is set at the time you deposit. If you deposit right after a bulk spacebank, after many other people have deposited because maintenence fees have been set, etc. and demand at the point is low, you are given low trading power due to the supply and demand. When demand heats up, the trading power required for your unit rises, but your trading power is fixed at a lower level.

This hits squarely upon another long standing dispute that I have had with Carolinian. He argues that the Weeks system is better because it uses the dynamic powers of supply and demand (or some similar phrase). Points are bad because they use a Communistic system of fixed prices.

I am glad that people like you and Jennie are arguing for the improvements in RCI.

 

[Carolinian]

The part where any judge or jury agreed with you that RCI did anything wrong. Please show me the document or link that explains the verdict.

You will see that when the case gets to court. We have to stop the sellout by the self-seeking shyster attorneys of record to get to that point.

Wow, Susan must have really rattled the cage. The usual suspects who pinch hit for RCI are out in force in this thread.

 

[Carolinian]

RCI took that language of subsituting weeks out of their T&C many years ago. They have used that same language more recently on the Points/Weeks crossover trades, but RCI whistleblowers at TimeshareTalk have revealed that this is a lie by RCI and it in fact does not subsitute anything.

RCI's attorneys must not have believed that the vague language you cite covers their rear end on rentals. Otherwise they would not have secretly, without announcing it, substituted new language in the fine print that explicitely included rentals.

Burying something in the fine print of T&C that contradicts the image that a company is otherwise giving to its clients, that of being an exchange company, is deceptive, and deceptive in the extreme. Why hide it? Why not put it promininently in RCI materials if they are so proud of it? They hide it only to cheat and deceive their members.

I can see I have upset you, and I hope I haven't rattled your faith in the Great and Powerful RCI.

I believe I understand both of those terms. It's certainly not deceptive, because the practice is spelled out very clearly in the Subscriber Agreement. Only a fool or an idiot would think that somehow RCI could not rent out deposits after reading that language. So, let's dispense with "deceptive".

As to "fair"---if RCI does as they say they do, substituting weeks of "comparable" value that they obtain in other ways---then it seems pretty darn fair to me. Even if they simply rely on bulk spacebanks of developer inventory of the proper size and season to replace deposits that are rented out, they're probably on pretty solid footing.

This, as it happens, is one of my pet peeves. Something that you do not like is not necessarily "unfair". You just don't like it. Unpleasant is not the same as unfair.

Finally, I see that I've upset you, so I'm afraid that this will be the end of my contribution to the conversation. If you wish to have the last word, you may be my guest.

 

[Carolinian]

John, you still don't get how trading power works, do you? It is based on supply and demand. Orlando is indeed a nice place to visit, and outside of hurricane season tends to have nice weather. However, it is massively overbuilt which kills its trading power on the supply side. It is much like the warm-all-year Canary Islands in that regard. Nice place but way overbuilt in timeshare.

When you look at supply and demand, Florida is indeed seasonal. RCI's own availibility tables published in the European version of its directory clearly show that. They show that for Florida 3 months of the year have very good availibility, 4 months have good availibility, 3 months have limited availibility, and 2 months have very limited availibility. That is about as seasonal as one can get. It contrasts with, say, South Africa, where all 12 months show very limited availibility. Get an RCI European directory and look on page 240, and you might learn something.

But, John, lets get back on subject. This thread is about the threat posed to the system by rentals, not your Orlando-is-best soapbox. IF you want to debate the merits of Orlando, please start another thread.

If you were really a discriminating timeshare consumer you would have to immediately stop enjoying beautiful Orlando timeshares and instead become a big holder of small, non-ranked,off season, ocean side weeks. Why? Because they need the fees and, after all, those are at least as good. Everyone knows that - right? They are ON THE BEACH after all - what does it matter that its in freezing weather that penguins avoid? Then you too could complain that RCI wasn't properly inflating the value of your worthless time by giving you desirable time in much nicer (and warmer year round) resorts!.

Really, it's a lifestyle and one can really get into it if you try. In that world there is no off season for your dog weeks, only those others own (and that strangely enough DO have year round demand!) And it is up to the evil exchange companies to ensure you that value no matter what it costs them or the owners of the far better and in demand resort time. And should you suggest that the very limited, highly seasonal weeks at those surf side locations that really ARE in demand should pay more while the dredge weeks pay less you will be roundly beaten down. It is the right of those few prime week owners to be subsidized by the other 40+ weeks per year, and of course the exchange giants, because - well, just because. That's the way it is. You'll have a whole new, if slightly off kilter, world view of timesharing once you buy in. And it will fan your love of the ever-so-effective class action as well. Another worthwhile endeavor to fix all that is wrong in timeshare.

This whole thread is a revisit to the same arguments when the meaningless suit was filed 5 years ago and the end result, despite the herculean and laudable efforts of Susan and Shep from TST, who really have gone to bat like few others for the owners, will in all likelihood still be a cave in to RCI. And the true answer still is to not use them or II if they are doing the wrong thing. No amount of notice to the owners about the pending settlement is going to get thousands and certainly not the tens of thousands needed up in arms over it as they often can't even figure out how to deposit or exchange their week(s). It is a non-issue to most contract adhesion or not.

 

[timeos2]

Total revamp needed

But, John, lets get back on subject. This thread is about the threat posed to the system by rentals, not your Orlando-is-best soapbox. IF.

Fair enough. First I stand 100 percent with the anti-rental of owners deposits view. I feel it is against the betterment of those looking for a fair trade and subject to easy manipulation that also tends to harm members.

Second I'm in agreement with the companies that due to the wide variations in value - which includes unit size & quality, use date, location & more - it is rare and nearly impossible to get a fair and equal match very often. So the concept of trade power and value creeps in. I disagree that those should be hidden as that means the buyer/owner is in the dark & at the mercy of the exchange co's. There needs to be a better way to adjust to equal value unequal deposits. Currently that means rental if the weeks aren't close enough to equal. That is opening the door far too wide to abuse.

The answer, IMO, is a better method or methods of equalization between unequal deposits. A point system and/or the ability to pay for upgrades - which should also mean credits for downgtades - seems to fit the bill.

I would prefer to see the whole system closed to non-owners (leave renting solely as an option for owners NOT exchange co's) and the systems changed to inform what the values are and provide a way to easily equalize them. While that means the days of upgrades for the savy disappear no one should feel they win or lose but simply get a fair and equal value out for what they put in. Impossible to do under the present week for week model. Doing away with that & installing a closed, identifiable system would allow the end of rentals except for the true unwanted leftovers at the 45-90 day timeframe. Until there is a method to be able to adjust the week for week model - maybe two weeks for one of higher value or a cash difference for a trade up - a refund for a trde down - the need to declare an easy 1 for 1 trade unequal & thus leaving a highly demanded week with no equal taker will continue. That's whats generates all the rentals which do nothing to benefit traders - in fact hurts them - but does benefit the Exchange Co's. However, short of just saying anything gets anything - and the opening that gives the savy to take advantage of unfair trades as used to be the norm - there is no way under the current set up to fairly equalize the trades. So disposing of them as rentals becomes vable and a worst case for those who just want to trade and receive fair value.

The current settlement does zero to fix the problems and may make it worse.

 

[bnoble]

I can see I have upset you

I'm not upset in the least. It's just not worth my time to have discussions with people who believe that "shouting" lends weight to their point.

 

["Roger"]

This is a seperate issue, but as usual you misstate my position.
....

But Roger, I really see what you are trying to do. You are running interference for your buds at RCI by trying to change the subject of this thread to points vs. weeks. Lets get back to topic on the corrupt rentals from RCI. If you want to talk points vs weeks, that belongs in another thread. Do not hijack this one.

Personally, I don't see where I have misstated your position.

For the record, I never had said that developers would not try to get the best deal that they can. This is much akin the suggestion that HOA's should try to pressure RCI into restoring prior levels of trading power. (That is within the Weeks system.) In a free market system, everyone tries to get the best deal they can. What makes it work is that there are also pressures that go the other way (toward not overpricing a resort). If a resort is overpriced (overpointed), users will not trade for it. Given that RCI has given the owners of the overpriced units points to spend, they end up taking a loss.

This is an abbreviated explanation for what would happen. The main point is that in a free market system, everyone tries to get the best deal they can. A free market system breaks down when the players are not given the information needed to make informed decisions. That is why saying that the Weeks system operates according to supply and demand is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term means. Supply and demand cannot operate with hidden prices.

So back to my main point in my original post. I wanted to congratulate Jennie and Susan for speaking up for timesharing becoming a more open system during the RCI court hearings. More openess would do wonders toward making timesharing fairer.

Finally, I do not know a single person who works for RCI much less being buddies with them. Your comment did accomplish one thing in that I was forced to respond to a post that I would have totally ignored otherwise - I felt compelled to clear the record.

 

[Carolinian]

We agree on the rental aspects, even if we disagree on some other issues. I won't point out where you are wrong on your trade power arguments; that belongs in another thread.

Fair enough. First I stand 100 percent with the anti-rental of owners deposits view. I feel it is against the betterment of those looking for a fair trade and subject to easy manipulation that also tends to harm members.

Second I'm in agreement with the companies that due to the wide variations in value - which includes unit size & quality, use date, location & more - it is rare and nearly impossible to get a fair and equal match very often. So the concept of trade power and value creeps in. I disagree that those should be hidden as that means the buyer/owner is in the dark & at the mercy of the exchange co's. There needs to be a better way to adjust to equal value unequal deposits. Currently that means rental if the weeks aren't close enough to equal. That is opening the door far too wide to abuse.

The answer, IMO, is a better method or methods of equalization between unequal deposits. A point system and/or the ability to pay for upgrades - which should also mean credits for downgtades - seems to fit the bill.

I would prefer to see the whole system closed to non-owners (leave renting solely as an option for owners NOT exchange co's) and the systems changed to inform what the values are and provide a way to easily equalize them. While that means the days of upgrades for the savy disappear no one should feel they win or lose but simply get a fair and equal value out for what they put in. Impossible to do under the present week for week model. Doing away with that & installing a closed, identifiable system would allow the end of rentals except for the true unwanted leftovers at the 45-90 day timeframe. Until there is a method to be able to adjust the week for week model - maybe two weeks for one of higher value or a cash difference for a trade up - a refund for a trde down - the need to declare an easy 1 for 1 trade unequal & thus leaving a highly demanded week with no equal taker will continue. That's whats generates all the rentals which do nothing to benefit traders - in fact hurts them - but does benefit the Exchange Co's. However, short of just saying anything gets anything - and the opening that gives the savy to take advantage of unfair trades as used to be the norm - there is no way under the current set up to fairly equalize the trades. So disposing of them as rentals becomes vable and a worst case for those who just want to trade and receive fair value.

The current settlement does zero to fix the problems and may make it worse.

 

[Carolinian]

I did not mean to imply that you are personal friends with anyone at RCI, and I apologize if you took it that way. My point was that you are a regular defender of RCI on these boards, which of course you have an absolute right to do.

Rigged and frozen point values a ''free market''? LOL. That makes as much sense as saying rent control is a free market. Supply and demand cannot operate with rigged and frozen prices.

Developers also screw some of their membes to line their own pockets in point values. Barrier Island Station is a good example. Their sold out beachfront resorts at Duck are much higher demand resorts than their inland drive-to-the-beach resort at Kitty Hawk, where they are still in sales. Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out which one got the most points in their rotten insider deal with RCI? Clue - it wasn't the higher demand resorts. That sort of pure corruption is the essense of RCI Point values.

But, again, you are trying to sidetrack this thread away from the lawsuit and rentals. Lets get back to the issue at hand.

Personally, I don't see where I have misstated your position.

For the record, I never had said that developers would not try to get the best deal that they can. This is much akin the suggestion that HOA's should try to pressure RCI into restoring prior levels of trading power. (That is within the Weeks system.) In a free market system, everyone tries to get the best deal they can. What makes it work is that there are also pressures that go the other way (toward not overpricing a resort). If a resort is overpriced (overpointed), users will not trade for it. Given that RCI has given the owners of the overpriced units points to spend, they end up taking a loss.

This is an abbreviated explanation for what would happen. The main point is that in a free market system, everyone tries to get the best deal they can. A free market system breaks down when the players are not given the information needed to make informed decisions. That is why saying that the Weeks system operates according to supply and demand is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term means. Supply and demand cannot operate with hidden prices.

So back to my main point in my original post. I wanted to congratulate Jennie and Susan for speaking up for timesharing becoming a more open system during the RCI court hearings. More openess would do wonders toward making timesharing fairer.

Finally, I do not know a single person who works for RCI much less being buddies with them. Your comment did accomplish one thing in that I was forced to respond to a post that I would have totally ignored otherwise - I felt compelled to clear the record.

 

[Mel]

Rigged and frozen point values a ''free market''? LOL. That makes as much sense as saying rent control is a free market. Supply and demand cannot operate with rigged and frozen prices.

RCI points is only frozen in the sense that it is not updated on as frequent a basis as one might like. RCI has given us the choice of temporarily frozen - but published - point values, that would be updated on an annual basis (or on some other "slow" schedule), or fluid values that are not published.

The ideal system would be something like a true "market" where the values are fluid, much as they appear to be in the "weeks" system, but where we could always look to see the current values. In such a system, you could offer your week up for whatever "value" you seek, and those wanting to trade in would "offer" whatever value they are willing to pay. But for such a system to work, you need a "buyer" for your week before you can exchange it for something else - how else will you know if you will have enough currency to pay for the week you exchange into?

Part of the value of RCI's system is the ability to deposit your week, and exchange for something else BEFORE somebody else takes your week.

And part of the problem with a "free market" exchange system would be a similiar situation to what we see in the resale market - many people who think their week is worth far more than it really is, who at the last minute give up, and let go of their weeks for far less then their true value. For savvy timeshare owners, this might not be such a problem - they will look at the price being offered for the weeks they own, and set their asking price accordingly, and move on. For everyone else it will be a question of who is willing to hold out longer - those who own the moderately-desireable weeks, or those who want to exchange into them.

As for the settlement being offered, it doesn't do anything to change the system overall. It is fluff, and should be rejected. Perhaps if there were no timeframe associated with the "look first" feature, it might be better. But even so, it's really no better than II's search first feature, and it may backfire, if it results in even fewer deposits.

 

[Susan2]

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair enough. . .

The answer, IMO, is a better method or methods of equalization between unequal deposits. A point system and/or the ability to pay for upgrades - which should also mean credits for downgtades - seems to fit the bill.

. . . Until there is a method to be able to adjust the week for week model - maybe two weeks for one of higher value or a cash difference for a trade up - a refund for a trde down - the need to declare an easy 1 for 1 trade unequal & thus leaving a highly demanded week with no equal taker will continue. That's whats generates all the rentals which do nothing to benefit traders - in fact hurts them - but does benefit the Exchange Co's. . .

The current settlement does zero to fix the problems and may make it worse.

I agree with much of what you say, but there IS (or at least WAS) a method of doing 2-for-1 exchanges. For a long time, RCI gave "bonus weeks" to depositers of the most desirable weeks, such as Hawaii. This made it sting less not to have too many options of fair trades for the most desirable weeks. (Interval still does this.)

Certainly, this is a far superior (and more fair) way of treating Hawaii deposits, when compared to the current model of withdrawing the best weeks and putting them in another pool, or renting them to make more money. This is precisely what happened with the Hawaii deposits over that infamous weekend at the end of May when the network went down. (Come on, you pundits. Some one come out with a clever title for that weekend!)

Yes, this is yet another suggestion that we "turn the clock back." Why not? Not everything new is better!

 

[Susan2]

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RCI points is only frozen in the sense that it is not updated on as frequent a basis as one might like. RCI has given us the choice of temporarily frozen - but published - point values, that would be updated on an annual basis (or on some other "slow" schedule), or fluid values that are not published.

I agree, Melanie, that a "points" system would be a fairer system than the current "weeks" system, if it were honestly handled. However, the problems with the original points programs are legion.

One huge problem is that the Points values for weeks resorts were absurdly weighted in favor of Points resorts and against "weeks" resorts. I can give you a personal example: My resort in Arkansas went to Points, and my 1BR week 50 (SOLIDLY "BLUE" time) was assigned a value of 23,500. Yes, it's a Gold Crown resort, but it's also the week BEFORE Xmas. (Not the most popular vacation time!)

Compare that to the point values originally assigned to Weeks resorts in Hawaii and NYC: a Gold Crown 1BR in Hawaii was assigned a value of 31,500 points, as was the Manhattan Club.

Think of that! I could have deposited my blue week 50 for four years (94,000 total points) added $10 for another 500 "borrowed" or "rented" points (at 2 cents per rented point) and received in exchange three weeks in NYC or Hawaii (94,500 total points)!

How ridiculous is that? It's beyond ridiculous IMO. In fact, I got the week 50 for free, paying only closing costs because the resort had a bunch of unsaleable weeks and wanted to generate maintenance fees.

I spent months on a BBS and other forums railing against the unfairness of the Points system as it was, but eventually gave up and converted to Points on my Arkansas week to increase my exchange options. Some might say I "sold out," but I figured I couldn't beat 'em, so I may as well join 'em. (I paid $1500 to convert, so it was a reasonable investment.)

The other problem I see with Points is that RCI tried to make it work for alternate types of services: hotels, airfares, rental cars, etc. IMO, this was a really bad business decision, founded in the greed of company executives all over the travel industry (who wanted to take entirely free vacations and could only do that if their companies offered all the products), and will haunt RCI for years to come. The economy went south soon after that. Already, RCI has had to vastly scale back the number of points that can be used on such alternatives, and the actual value received on "points partners" has become pitiful.

None of that means that Points could not be used to equalize trades, though. Let's face it, when RCI was founded, there were no seasonal or quality (Gold Crown, Silver Crown) variations. (Just like TPI works now.) Used appropriately, with fair values assigned, it would be a superior system. (And BTW, I think that instead of constant re-rating the resorts, there could be "sales" now and then -- just like EVERY industry uses to unload inventory that proved to be less popular than predicted.)

 

[timeos2]

Lawsuits won't solve it - new approaches will

I agree with much of what you say, but there IS (or at least WAS) a method of doing 2-for-1 exchanges. For a long time, RCI gave "bonus weeks" to depositers of the most desirable weeks, such as Hawaii. This made it sting less not to have too many options of fair trades for the most desirable weeks. (Interval still does this.)

Certainly, this is a far superior (and more fair) way of treating Hawaii deposits, when compared to the current model of withdrawing the best weeks and putting them in another pool, or renting them to make more money. This is precisely what happened with the Hawaii deposits over that infamous weekend at the end of May when the network went down. (Come on, you pundits. Some one come out with a clever title for that weekend!)

Yes, this is yet another suggestion that we "turn the clock back." Why not? Not everything new is better!

You are on the right track but the idea to turn back to a system that failed isn't going to make things better. Looking at one area - be it Hawaii or Orlando or OBX - and trying to fix that isn't fixing the system. The problem of non-comparable values is universal. The need to quantify values upfront for deposits and ongoing for searches is critical. Otherwise the member is taking leaps of faith and we know that they aren't warranted. While there is a value being assigned - the secret trade value - having it hidden makes it even worse. No one knows what they have, what they can get and are left at the mercy of what has proved to be a money grubbing industry that uses the lack of information to bamboozle the very paying members they court. I'm certainly not saying Points is perfect but it is an attempt to reveal the ugly truth that there is a big difference in desirability based on many factors.

Whatever the owners favorite area/resort may be you can be sure they will feel they are being shortchanged and that some area they don't care for is being overvalued. In fact it is in the best interest of the exchange systems to have things so perfectly valued that it all gets taken without waste. To do that really is an art and no system comes close now. The closest is the free market of rentals (although still tainted by unrealistically low offers by desperate owners and overly subsidized exchange companies paying nothing for inventory thus willing to give it away for loose change) which requires users to reach into their pockets in a currency they understand - dollars - to reflect the real value of a given week/resort/location. Doesn't rent? You're too high priced. Too many takers not enough inventory? You are underpricing. Nothing else comes close to revealing true market value.

Leaving RCI/II etc and simply running rentals would quickly reveal the real value - or lack thereof - of most ownerships. Once that was done then an enterprising group such as the original RCI could offer to do the dirty work for a fee and base it on real world values. What a concept. Never happen.

 

[Susan2]

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are on the right track but the idea to turn back to a system that failed isn't going to make things better. . . enterprising group such as the original RCI could offer to do the dirty work for a fee and base it on real world values. What a concept. Never happen.

Wow! I used to consider myself cynical. I am bested, however, and I admit it.

First of all, who says RCI "failed"? Cendant would not have bought it if it wasn't a going concern! That, too, is the way of the business world. And Cendant decided they could milk it (us!) even further to make greater profits.

So why shouldn't another company step in and take over what RCI used to do? One reason is that RCI has a "exclusive" contract with most of its affiliated resorts, but it is unlikely that such a contract clause would be enforced. But the real point of including such clauses isn't to enforce them; it's to intimidate the other parties from getting to that point. Works well, too, for the most part. But at some point, someone pushes the issue. Eventually.

This, too, will come to pass.

 

["Roger"]

I agree with much of what you say, but there IS (or at least WAS) a method of doing 2-for-1 exchanges. For a long time, RCI gave "bonus weeks" to depositers of the most desirable weeks, such as Hawaii. This made it sting less not to have too many options of fair trades for the most desirable weeks...

Just a quick note.

You are pointing a far too rosy picture of how the Hawaiian owners were treated. When you tried to use the bonus weeks, the only things available was left over inventory. The same inventory was available to every RCI member under some other program (I forgot the name) that allowed them to buy the very same weeks for under $200. By the time the Hawaiian owner paid the exchange fee, what the bonus weeks amounted to was about a $75 ot $100 discount on junk inventory.

There was one way to get good inventory with the bonus weeks (described on TUG). That was to call less than ten days out and see if someone cancelled on a Gold Crown unit somewhere. A few people did this with success, but most of us were not willing to sit around with bags packed, hope we could find a last minute low airfare for who knows where, etc.

The general consensus on TUG at the time was that the bonus week was a sham instituted to help developers add to their sales pitch.

 

[Carolinian]

A market based system can only be honest, however, if the entity running it has no conflict of interest that would encourage it to put its thumb on the scales and distort values for its own benefit. Any time that entity rents inventory from the exchange pool for its own benefit, it has a massive conflict of interest. Hopelfully, with the help of heros like Susan, and no thanks to the shyster Attorneys of Record, maybe this class action can still be a tool to bring RCI's rental conflict of interest to a screeching halt. The whole points vs. weeks issue is extremely complex and perhaps we need to start another thread for yet another debate on that. This threat is on too important an issue to timesharing to bog it down in that side issue, however. Your simplistic argument is, however, wrong as to that side issue.

RCI points is only frozen in the sense that it is not updated on as frequent a basis as one might like. RCI has given us the choice of temporarily frozen - but published - point values, that would be updated on an annual basis (or on some other "slow" schedule), or fluid values that are not published.

The ideal system would be something like a true "market" where the values are fluid, much as they appear to be in the "weeks" system, but where we could always look to see the current values. In such a system, you could offer your week up for whatever "value" you seek, and those wanting to trade in would "offer" whatever value they are willing to pay. But for such a system to work, you need a "buyer" for your week before you can exchange it for something else - how else will you know if you will have enough currency to pay for the week you exchange into?

Part of the value of RCI's system is the ability to deposit your week, and exchange for something else BEFORE somebody else takes your week.

And part of the problem with a "free market" exchange system would be a similiar situation to what we see in the resale market - many people who think their week is worth far more than it really is, who at the last minute give up, and let go of their weeks for far less then their true value. For savvy timeshare owners, this might not be such a problem - they will look at the price being offered for the weeks they own, and set their asking price accordingly, and move on. For everyone else it will be a question of who is willing to hold out longer - those who own the moderately-desireable weeks, or those who want to exchange into them.

As for the settlement being offered, it doesn't do anything to change the system overall. It is fluff, and should be rejected. Perhaps if there were no timeframe associated with the "look first" feature, it might be better. But even so, it's really no better than II's search first feature, and it may backfire, if it results in even fewer deposits.