Finally, I understand what the controversy is and it is both basic and two-fold.
First, there is the controversy for the TS user. Some people buy to use and those people may be disadvantaged when it comes to trading. So those highly desirable OBX and London timeshares do not receive the TPUs that they "should" be entitled to ... because seldom they are traded, they are normally "used."
And there seems to be a disparate upgrade in TPU value for those people that have purchased specifically to exchange.
In the past, there may not have been a conflict in "owning to use" vs. "owning to exchange." In the past, those who "own to use," on the limited occasions when they chose to exchange, were given sufficient trading power to get something similar to what they were giving up. And now those who "own to use" are not being treated fairly because they are underpointed with the TPUs?
Right now, I have a mix of "own to use" my DVC points, my "own to exchange" Dikhololo and Rayburn Country Club, and purchased for both "own to use" and "own to exchange," Sheraton Broadway Plantation in Myrtle Beach.
And my satisfaction with each of these purchases is commensurate with the purpose for which I purchased them: I am still happy with my DVC points. I will be using points for May, 2012 at my home resort at WDW. I am less happy than I was intitially with RCC and Dik - I am no longer getting the trades that I once did. I am still happy with SBP, I got great trades this past year, I have one good trade that I will use this fall (Hyatt Wild Oak - which I can drive to) and I have a request in for a Curacao resort. If I do not get the trade into Curacao, I will use my SBP for a summer vacation next year. And I will still be happy.
If people know that the goal posts can be moved and choose to purchase based on the present goalpost position, what is the problem with them purchasing to trade?
Second, and really unrelated to the first, is the "fairness" of RCI overpointing resorts. And in this, I believe that you are correct, that the ONLY reason that RCI would overpoint is a defense to the next lawsuit over renting deposits. If they overpoint VV@P for deposits, and underpoint the highly desirable deposits (desirable based on supply and demand - that is more demand than there is supply), when they rent the highly desirable deposits, they will be able to claim a "like for like" based on their own (RCI's) assignment of points. And their assignment of points is artificial so that it benefits RCI, not the owners. So the pointing is not based on market factors, it is based on defensive strategy for the future lawsuits. So RCI is "wrong," "bad" and possibly illegally assigning points.
So the philosophical question becomes, "If RCI is wrong in assigning too many points to certain deposits, is it wrong for those that know what the assignment of points is, to take advantage of it?" And I believe that the answer to that question is, "If the user understands that they are making a decision to purchase an over-pointed resort based on the current assignment of points, and the user understands that the assignment of points is likely to change in the future, then the user is taking the risk of purchasing points that may be worth less, much less, in the future, and it is not wrong for them to make that decision." But no one is telling the developer purchaser that the points are overvalued, so they do not have that critical piece of information (this resort is overvalued on points) when making their decision to purchase.*
Which brings me to a second reason to overpoint a resort, and that is that the overpointing creates an artificial demand. That is, the demand for the VV@P is based on the value of the points rather than the intrinsic value of the resort. Or IOW, the desirability of owning at VV@P is based on the value of the points rather than the actual desirability of the resort. This benefits the resort because it becomes a selling point, "Our resort is highly desirable, look, RCI assigns 50 points to it, and the HGVC Parc Soleil is only worth 25points (or whatever) so we must be great." Hand the potential buyer the RCI book, "Look and see how many wonderful trades that you can make." And then RCI benefits because those buyers don't want to stay in their own resort, they would much rather stay in the nicer resort that is intrinsically worth more points but artificially costs less points, so that drives demand for exchanges.
Does the problem then becomes one of legality because both the resort and RCI are making false representations of the "value" of the resort?
If a resort is being sold based on a point value that it does not deserve, (if analyzed on a true market model of supply and demand), is this a fraudulent representation of "value?" And what a proof problem that will be for anyone making the claim of misrepresentation. "I bought this resort because it is worth 50 TPUs, but I find that I like this resort only half as much as I like the resort that is worth 25 TPUs. And over on Ebay, my resort sells for $1 and I have to pay people to take it off my hands, but the 25 TPU resort that I like better is worth $5,000. If I had known that the TPU value was artificial, I would not have bought this resort, i would have bought that other resort." And the defense to that, "You knew that you were buying this resort where the rooms are small, the buildings are high, the buildings are crammed together, the parking is difficult. And all of that was there for you to see. You freely and voluntarily chose to make this purchase. We did not misrepresent anything. You chose based on the TPUs assigned. And the TPUs were really assigned that way. We don't make the RCI rules. We have no control over the RCI rules changing."
If RCI can demonstrate some rational basis for the assignment of points, is that a good defense to the "mis-pointing" of resorts? In our capitalist system, do they have an obligation to their stockholders to make their best profit that overrides their obligation to the depositors for "fairness"?
I don't know the answer. I do know that the people that take the time to learn the rules will benefit from the rules and those that do not learn the rules will be disadvantaged. And the rules can change so that the decision one makes today to take advantage of the rules, can become a bad decision, in the event that the rules change.
Contrast that with the purchaser that makes their decision to purchase strictly based on their perceived value of their purchase without any additional incentives - that person is the "own to use" purchaser. As long as the resort is maintained, the purchaser for "own to use" is unlikely to be "hoodwinked." The goalposts cannot be moved for this purchaser.
